Opinion
2016–01239 Ind. No. 1212/14
05-01-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Tyrone MCCALLA, Appellant.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Cristin N. Connell of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Cristin N. Connell of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On December 10, 2013, the defendant was taken into custody by officers of the Nassau County Police Department (hereinafter NCPD) after he exited a criminal courtroom in Queens County. He was transported to a police precinct in Nassau County where, after being advised of and waiving his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ), he was questioned by an NCPD detective about three burglaries that occurred on November 12, 2013, November 13, 2013, and November 22, 2013, respectively, in Nassau County. The defendant was not represented by counsel in connection with the questioning about the alleged burglaries in Nassau County. The detective did not question the defendant about the Queens County matter, in which the defendant was represented by counsel.
The defendant contends that his statements should have been suppressed on the ground that the Nassau County burglaries and Queens County matter were so closely related "transactionally, or in space or time," that any questioning concerning the Nassau County burglaries would "all but inevitably" elicit incriminating statements pertaining to the Queens County matter ( People v. Henry, 31 N.Y.3d 364, 368, 78 N.Y.S.3d 275, 102 N.E.3d 1056 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d 632, 638, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 ; People v. Vella, 21 N.Y.2d 249, 251–252, 287 N.Y.S.2d 369, 234 N.E.2d 422 ). This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since this particular issue was not raised by the defendant in the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Turriago, 90 N.Y.2d 77, 84, 659 N.Y.S.2d 183, 681 N.E.2d 350 ; People v. Madison, 22 A.D.3d 684, 686, 804 N.Y.S.2d 339 ). In any event, there is no evidence in the record to establish that the Nassau County burglaries and the Queens County matter were so closely related transactionally, or in space or time, that questioning, in the absence of representation, about the Nassau County burglaries would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the Queens County matter in which there had been an entry of counsel (see People v. Henry, 31 N.Y.3d at 369–370, 78 N.Y.S.3d 275, 102 N.E.3d 1056 ; People v. Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d at 638, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 ; People v. Cowan, 92 A.D.3d 794, 795, 938 N.Y.S.2d 805 ; People v. Rivera, 277 A.D.2d 470, 472, 716 N.Y.S.2d 704 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.