Opinion
December 20, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In People v Hollman ( 79 N.Y.2d 181, 191) the Court of Appeals recognized that "the tone of police-initiated encounters with civilians can be subtle and ever-shifting, that words and gestures are susceptible to many varying interpretations, and that suspicion can grow based on intangibles evident only to the eyes of a trained police officer". Here, there were a series of factors which escalated incrementally as the encounter evolved (see, People v Gibson, 194 A.D.2d 623). The defendant, and the codefendant were carrying pillow cases from which a protruding videocassette recorder and telephone could be seen. People were pointing at the suspects, who were dropping items without retrieving them. These factors provided the police with reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop of these two individuals (see, People v Moore, 47 N.Y.2d 911, 912; accord, People v Hollman, supra, at 191; People v Gibson, supra). When, upon questioning the suspects, the officers learned that they could not identify the property that they were carrying, there was enough to support the detention of the individuals while further investigation was made (People v Moore, supra, at 912). When, upon further investigation, the officer observed a broken window, broken bushes, and mud on the dining room rug of the complainant's dwelling, and returned with the complainant, who identified the property as belonging to her family, there was probable cause to arrest the defendant and the codefendant. Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the defense counsel moved for a trial order of dismissal, arguing only that "the People have failed to put forward a legally sufficient case." Such generalized motions for trial orders of dismissal do not preserve a specific claim of insufficient evidence for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Salas, 192 A.D.2d 627).
In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom (see, People v Giuliano, 65 N.Y.2d 766, 768), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Chalmars, 176 A.D.2d 239). Under the circumstances herein, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendant, acting in concert with his accomplice, burglarized the complainant's home. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Adams, 69 N.Y.2d 805; People v Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.