Opinion
1053 KA 11-01743
11-14-2014
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pablo ESTIVAREZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Maria Maldonado of counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Maria Maldonado of counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree (Penal Law § 221.20 ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress marihuana seized by the police from the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger following a traffic stop. Defendant sought suppression of the marihuana on the ground that it was the product of an illegal search of a locked container within the trunk of the vehicle, and he now contends for the first time on appeal that the officer who stopped the vehicle gave testimony “ ‘patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections' ” with respect to the traffic stop (People v. Lebron, 184 A.D.2d 784, 784, 585 N.Y.S.2d 498 ). That contention therefore is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Buckman, 66 A.D.3d 1400, 1401, 886 N.Y.S.2d 271, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 937, 895 N.Y.S.2d 328, 922 N.E.2d 917 ), and is without merit in any event. The hearing record supports the court's determination that the officer lawfully stopped the vehicle for having an inadequate muffler in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(31) (see People v.
Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 269, 269–270, 619 N.Y.S.2d 733, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1039, 623 N.Y.S.2d 196, 647 N.E.2d 467 ).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Velez, 78 A.D.3d 1522, 1522, 911 N.Y.S.2d 530 ; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.