From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vitiello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 2001
285 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted June 11, 2001.

July 2, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered September 4, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Mitchell J. Briskey of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Michelle Wolf of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

At approximately 4:00 A.M. on June 13, 1995, a police officer responding to a radio report of a shooting in Queens spoke with the victim of the shooting. The victim described the gunman, who he had known before the shooting as "Anthony", and also described the van the gunman fled in. Approximately one hour later, police officers stopped a van matching the description given by the victim.

The police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the van, which they saw in close proximity to the time and location of the shooting (see, People v. Flanagan, 224 A.D.2d 633; People v. Bianchi, 208 A.D.2d 551, affd 85 N.Y.2d 1022). Moreover, the suspicion was elevated to probable cause when the defendant told the police officers that his name was Anthony (see, People v. Sanchez, 216 A.D.2d 207; People v. Dawkins, 163 A.D.2d 322). The defendant failed to object to the prosecutor's questions on cross-examination, in which he sought to compel the defendant to testify that the arresting officer lied. The defendant also failed to object to the prosecutor's summation, in which he argued that the defendant had accused the victim and the arresting officer of lying. Thus, his arguments in this regard were unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Robinson, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Mar. 19, 2001]; People v. Green, 272 A.D.2d 341). In any event, any impropriety was harmless considering the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Olsowske, 247 A.D.2d 856; People v. Calada, 154 A.D.2d 700).

BRACKEN, P.J., FRIEDMANN, FLORIO and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Vitiello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 2001
285 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Vitiello

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ANTHONY VITIELLO, appellant

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

Date published: Jul 2, 2001

Citations

285 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
727 N.Y.S.2d 890

Citing Cases

People v. Russ

County Court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police officers lawfully stopped the minivan…

People v. McCoy

Since there was no illegal police pursuit, the recovery of the gun was lawful ( see People v. Foster, 302…