From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Scherifi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 21, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant argues that his arrest was not based on probable cause. This argument must be rejected. Initially, it must be noted that the defendant did not raise this argument before the hearing court and thus, it has not been preserved for appellate review (People v Martin, 135 A.D.2d 836). In any event, this argument is without merit. The record indicates that one Mason Peffer was arrested on November 23, 1984 for burglary, and told the police that "he did burglaries with [the defendant] George Scherifi". Under these circumstances, the subsequent arrest of the defendant was proper, since the statement of an accomplice which implicates another individual constitutes probable cause to arrest the latter (People v Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; People v White, 109 A.D.2d 859, 860).

The defendant further argues that his warrantless arrest, in his girlfriend's room, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. This argument is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Murriel, 134 A.D.2d 623, 624). In any event, the record supports the determination of the hearing court that the defendant consented to the arresting officer's entry. Finally, the record supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561).

The defendant's remaining arguments, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, CPL 470.05; People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 368-369; People v Maerling, 46 N.Y.2d 289, 302-303; People v Nieves, 133 A.D.2d 234, 235; People v James, 111 A.D.2d 254, 255; People v Gabler, 129 A.D.2d 733; People v Singleton, 121 A.D.2d 752; CPL 200.50). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Scherifi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Scherifi

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE SCHERIFI…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 21, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. Cnty. of Suffolk

The existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a false arrest claim under both New York law and 42…

People v. Walker

Defendant was implicated in the crimes charged in the prior sworn statement of a codefendant, Campus Johnson,…