evidence elicited hearing in New York

2026The evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant ( see People v Battle , 239 AD3d 764 , 766; People v Rodgers , 228 AD3d at 962).

2025The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting into evidence records of a DNA analysis performed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel did not object to the admission of either the records or the accompanying testimony from a criminalist on the basis that their admission violated the Confrontation Clause ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Bostic , 236 AD3d 1051 , 1054; People v Espinosa , 207 AD3d 655 , 656).

2025The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting into evidence records of a DNA analysis performed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel did not object to the admission of either the records or the accompanying testimony from a criminalist on the basis that their admission violated the Confrontation Clause ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Bostic , 236 AD3d 1051 , 1054; People v Espinosa , 207 AD3d 655 , 656).

2025The evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant ( see People v McLeod , 235 AD3d 999 , 1000; People v Rodgers , 228 AD3d at 962).

2025The evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant ( see People v McLeod , 235 AD3d 999 , 1000; People v Rodgers , 228 AD3d at 962).

2025The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting into evidence records of a DNA analysis performed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel did not object to the admission of either the records or the accompanying testimony from a criminalist on the basis that their admission violated the Confrontation Clause ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Bostic , 236 AD3d 1051 , 1054; People v Espinosa , 207 AD3d 655 , 656).

2025The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting into evidence records of a DNA analysis performed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel did not object to the admission of either the records or the accompanying testimony from a criminalist on the basis that their admission violated the Confrontation Clause ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Bostic , 236 AD3d 1051 , 1054; People v Espinosa , 207 AD3d 655 , 656).

2024The evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest him ( see People v Maldonado , 86 NY2d 631, 635-636 ; People v Nikac , 201 AD3d 955, 956 ; People v Mitchell , 124 AD3d 912, 914 ).

2024The evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest him ( see People v Maldonado , 86 NY2d 631, 635-636 ; People v Nikac , 201 AD3d 955, 956 ; People v Mitchell , 124 AD3d 912, 914 ).

2024Similarly, the defendant's specific arguments in support of his contention that the Supreme Court should have suppressed certain statements he made to the police following his arrest are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Summerville , 138 AD3d 897, 897 ; People v Folkes , 43 AD3d 956, 957 ; People v Santiago , 289 AD2d 421, 421-422 ) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v Vinson , 199 AD3d 942, 943 ; People v Perez , 150 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 ).

2024Similarly, the defendant's specific arguments in support of his contention that the Supreme Court should have suppressed certain statements he made to the police following his arrest are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Summerville , 138 AD3d 897, 897 ; People v Folkes , 43 AD3d 956, 957 ; People v Santiago , 289 AD2d 421, 421-422 ) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v Vinson , 199 AD3d 942, 943 ; People v Perez , 150 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 ).

2024Similarly, the defendant's specific arguments in support of his contention that the Supreme Court should have suppressed certain statements he made to the police following his arrest are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Summerville , 138 AD3d 897, 897 ; People v Folkes , 43 AD3d 956, 957 ; People v Santiago , 289 AD2d 421, 421-422 ) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v Vinson , 199 AD3d 942, 943 ; People v Perez , 150 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 ).

2024The evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest him ( see People v Maldonado , 86 NY2d 631, 635-636 ; People v Nikac , 201 AD3d 955, 956 ; People v Mitchell , 124 AD3d 912, 914 ).

2024Similarly, the defendant's specific arguments in support of his contention that the Supreme Court should have suppressed certain statements he made to the police following his arrest are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Summerville , 138 AD3d 897, 897 ; People v Folkes , 43 AD3d 956, 957 ; People v Santiago , 289 AD2d 421, 421-422 ) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v Vinson , 199 AD3d 942, 943 ; People v Perez , 150 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 ).

2024Similarly, the defendant's specific arguments in support of his contention that the Supreme Court should have suppressed certain statements he made to the police following his arrest are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Summerville , 138 AD3d 897, 897 ; People v Folkes , 43 AD3d 956, 957 ; People v Santiago , 289 AD2d 421, 421-422 ) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v Vinson , 199 AD3d 942, 943 ; People v Perez , 150 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 ).

2021Under the circumstances, notwithstanding the apparent strength of the People's case against the defendant, we cannot say that a decision to face the risks of proceeding to trial, including the exposure to a harsher sentence, would not have been rational ( see People v Abdallah , 153 AD3d at 1427-1428 ; People v Picca , 97 AD3d at 183-184).

2017Here, the evidence elicited at the hearing demonstrated that seven visits were made to the defendant’s residence at different times, including those times when the defendant could reasonably have been expected to be found at his residence (see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Baldi, 128 AD3d 777 [2015]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cherot, 102 AD3d 768, 769 [2013]).

2004Upon our review of the record, including the evidence elicited at the hearing, we find that the Commissioner established that petitioner suffers from a “dangerous mental disorder” as defined by CPL 330.20 (1) (c) (see Matter of George L., 85 NY2d 295 [1995]; Matter of Anonymous v Carmichael, 284 AD2d 182 [2001]; see generally Matter of Consilvio v Diana W., 269 AD2d 310 [2000]; Matter of Arnold A. v Donaldson, 215 AD2d 302 [1995]).

2004Upon our review of the record, including the evidence elicited at the hearing, we find that the Commissioner established that petitioner suffers from a “dangerous mental disorder” as defined by CPL 330.20 (1) (c) (see Matter of George L., 85 NY2d 295 [1995]; Matter of Anonymous v Carmichael, 284 AD2d 182 [2001]; see generally Matter of Consilvio v Diana W., 269 AD2d 310 [2000]; Matter of Arnold A. v Donaldson, 215 AD2d 302 [1995]).

2004Upon our review of the record, including the evidence elicited at the hearing, we find that the Commissioner established that petitioner suffers from a “dangerous mental disorder” as defined by CPL 330.20 (1) (c) (see Matter of George L., 85 NY2d 295 [1995]; Matter of Anonymous v Carmichael, 284 AD2d 182 [2001]; see generally Matter of Consilvio v Diana W., 269 AD2d 310 [2000]; Matter of Arnold A. v Donaldson, 215 AD2d 302 [1995]).

1994Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s summation impugned the integrity of his counsel by warning the jury not to let him "pull the wool over [their] eyes” and characterizing the evidence elicited by the defense was a "red herring” did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, e.g., People v Flores, 191 AD2d 306 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1013 ; People v Emphram, 179 AD2d 402 , lv denied 79 NY2d 947 ).

1994Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s summation impugned the integrity of his counsel by warning the jury not to let him "pull the wool over [their] eyes” and characterizing the evidence elicited by the defense was a "red herring” did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, e.g., People v Flores, 191 AD2d 306 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1013 ; People v Emphram, 179 AD2d 402 , lv denied 79 NY2d 947 ).

1992We find that suppression was properly denied as the evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police officers had an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181 ; People v DeBour, 40 NY2d 210 ) and that the defendant’s conduct in discarding the tennis ball constituted an abandonment (see, People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398 , cert denied 444 US 969 ; People v Hughes, 174 AD2d 692 ; People v Carrington, 174 AD2d 572 ).

1992We find that suppression was properly denied as the evidence elicited at the hearing established that the police officers had an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181 ; People v DeBour, 40 NY2d 210 ) and that the defendant’s conduct in discarding the tennis ball constituted an abandonment (see, People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398 , cert denied 444 US 969 ; People v Hughes, 174 AD2d 692 ; People v Carrington, 174 AD2d 572 ).