Opinion
2019–03621 Ind. No. 18–0021
02-16-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Coty HIGHSMITH, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant. Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Brian R. Pouliot and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Brian R. Pouliot and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, WILLIAM G. FORD, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Anne E. Minihan, J.), rendered February 5, 2019, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's supplemental omnibus motion to controvert a search warrant and suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not err in denying, without a hearing, his supplemental omnibus motion to controvert a search warrant and suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof. The defendant's supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant a hearing (see CPL 710.60[3][b] ; People v. Garay, 25 N.Y.3d 62, 72, 7 N.Y.S.3d 254, 30 N.E.3d 145 ; People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 426, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 ). Further, the defendant improperly relies upon trial testimony, which may not be considered in evaluating a suppression ruling on appeal (see People v. Abrew, 95 N.Y.2d 806, 808, 710 N.Y.S.2d 833, 732 N.E.2d 940 ; People v. Perez–Rodriguez, 166 A.D.3d 659, 659–660, 87 N.Y.S.3d 204 ). His contention that the court erred in failing to reconsider his suppression motion in light of the trial testimony is without merit, as he did not move for such relief (see generally People v. Abrew, 95 N.Y.2d at 808, 710 N.Y.S.2d 833, 732 N.E.2d 940 ; People v. Rice, 39 A.D.3d 567, 568, 834 N.Y.S.2d 254 ; People v. Crosby, 33 A.D.3d 719, 720, 821 N.Y.S.2d 908 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court conducted an adequate inquiry into the reasons for his request for the assignment of new counsel (see generally People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 99–102, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 ; People v. Linares, 2 N.Y.3d 507, 510–511, 780 N.Y.S.2d 529, 813 N.E.2d 609 ). The defendant's responses did not suggest the possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other good cause for the substitution of counsel (see People v. Polite, 164 A.D.3d 1372, 1374, 83 N.Y.S.3d 607 ; People v. Wright, 147 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 47 N.Y.S.3d 471 ; People v. Cheeks, 107 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 966 N.Y.S.2d 893 ).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644–645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., RIVERA, FORD and DOWLING, JJ., concur.