Opinion
2016-12912 Ind. No. 2158/15
06-05-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Steven H. PLACEK, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Michelle Kaszuba of counsel; Victoria Randall on the brief), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Michelle Kaszuba of counsel; Victoria Randall on the brief), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, specifically a loaded and operable handgun. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that the handgun was recovered from the unlocked center console inside the rental vehicle that the defendant was operating at the time he was lawfully stopped by the police based on violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see People v. Thompson , 106 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 963 N.Y.S.2d 780 ; People v. Major , 267 A.D.2d 251, 251, 699 N.Y.S.2d 441 ). The search that yielded the handgun followed the defendant's valid arrest for possession of an 11–inch knife that the police recovered from the defendant's person (see People v. Nichols , 250 A.D.2d 370, 371, 672 N.Y.S.2d 326 ), and was based on probable cause and in accordance with the automobile exception (see People v. Blasich , 73 N.Y.2d 673, 678, 543 N.Y.S.2d 40, 541 N.E.2d 40 ; People v. Langen , 60 N.Y.2d 170, 180–181, 469 N.Y.S.2d 44, 456 N.E.2d 1167 ; People v. Belton , 55 N.Y.2d 49, 55, 447 N.Y.S.2d 873, 432 N.E.2d 745 ; People v. Kimble , 302 A.D.2d 207, 208, 756 N.Y.S.2d 141 ). In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's contention regarding the validity of the search as an inventory search.
The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, in effect, that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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, 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, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
Since the defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, there can be no appellate review of the defendant's claim, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient (see CPL 210.30[6] ; People v. Barton , 110 A.D.3d 1089, 1091, 973 N.Y.S.2d 760 ; People v. Perry , 19 A.D.3d 619, 619–620, 800 N.Y.S.2d 25 ).
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.