Opinion
2013-03-14
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward CARDELLE, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of The Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Axelrod of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of The Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Axelrod of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J. at suppression hearing; Jill Konviser, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered October 21, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, *314and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of the weight to be given the observing officer's admission that an aspect of his initial testimony had been mistaken.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to introduce rebuttal evidence that responded to evidence introduced by the defense ( see People v. Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, 345, 456 N.Y.S.2d 694, 442 N.E.2d 1205 [1982],cert. denied460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1448, 75 L.Ed.2d 803 [1983] ). Even if the testimony was “not technically of a rebuttal nature,” the court had discretion to allow it (CPL 260.30[7] ).
The hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The court properly determined that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant when, in a drug prone area, an officer saw defendant accept money in return for a small package, and the officer, based on his experience, believed that the package contained drugs ( see e. g. People v. Turell, 248 A.D.2d 330, 670 N.Y.S.2d 96 [1st Dept. 1998],lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 862, 677 N.Y.S.2d 93, 699 N.E.2d 453 [1998] ). The hearing evidence establishes that there was a brief investigatory detention of defendant ( see People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 238–239, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861 [1986] ), during which time police investigation of the apprehended buyer provided probable cause for defendant's arrest.