Opinion
570645/16
04-13-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luis Maldonado, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761 [1977]). The officer's initial observation of defendant on a public sidewalk with a "black metal clip" protruding from his right pants pocket that was "about three inches long," provided, at least, a founded suspicion of criminal activity permitting the officer to approach to conduct a common law inquiry of defendant (see People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 220 [1976]; People v Best, 57 A.D.3d 279 [2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 756 [2009]). As the officer approached defendant, he observed "the top of the blade" which had a "little lever," which he recognized as a switchblade. In the circumstances, the officer was permitted to remove the knife from defendant's pocket and, after testing the knife and determining that it was, in fact, a switchblade, to arrest defendant (see People v Miranda, 19 N.Y.3d 912 [2012]; People v Prude, 166 A.D.3d 411 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1128 [2018]; People v Cameron, 122 A.D.3d 472 [2014], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 965 [2015]).
The court also properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statement that the knife was used for construction. Defendant was not under arrest or handcuffed when he made the statement, the police did not have their guns drawn and did not otherwise create a coercive or police-dominated atmosphere (see Matter of Kwok T., 43 N.Y.2d 213, 219 [1977]; People v Clarke, 157 A.D.3d 616 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1080 [2018]).
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence presented at trial by the People, which included the officer's testimony and his demonstration of the operability of the knife, was sufficient to support the factfinder's conclusion that the knife met the statutory definition of a switchblade (see Penal Law § 265.00[4]; People v Berrezueta, 31 N.Y.3d 1091 [2018]; People v Parrilla, 112 A.D.3d 517 [2013], affd 27 N.Y.3d 400 [2016]). All concur
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.