Opinion
Submitted September 15, 2000.
October 16, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered May 17, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Steven A. Feldman, Roslyn, N.Y., for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well settled that the factual findings and credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Rose, 204 A.D.2d 745, 746). The credible evidence adduced at the suppression hearing supports the County Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see, People v. Gormely, 222 A.D.2d 521, 522; People v. Rivera, 220 A.D.2d 782; People v. Boone, 183 A.D.2d 721).
The defendant's contention that his guilt was not proven by legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for appellate review, since he made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal and did not raise the specific grounds that he now raises (see, People v. Colavito, 70 N.Y.2d 996; People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048; People v. Tallarine, 223 A.D.2d 738; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed the stolen jewelry. The testimony concerning the defendant's actions and statements to the detectives was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that the defendant knew the jewelry he possessed had been stolen (see, People v. Zorcik, 67 N.Y.2d 670; People v. Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278, 285-286, cert denied 405 U.S. 1041; People v. Von Werne, 41 N.Y.2d 584, 590).
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.