witness at the suppression hearing in New York

1992This issue is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not raise the reliability of the information transmitted to the arresting officer as an issue at the hearing (see, People v Weston, 56 NY2d 844 ; People v Tyson, 160 AD2d 826 ).

1992The defendant’s contention that the People were required to produce the undercover officer as a witness at the suppression hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Weston, 56 NY2d 844 ; People v Taylor, 172 AD2d 784 ) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47 , cert denied 469 US 852 ).

2018New York courts have interpreted the CPL in this way and held that issues similar to the one presented in this appeal must be preserved by the specific defendant, even if raised by a codefendant ( see People v Toledo , 101 AD3d 571 , 571 [1st Dept 2012] ["Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court erred in failing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause, as he did not join in the challenges made to those jurors by other defendants"]; People v Hernandez , 136 AD3d 1055 , 1056 [2d Dept 2016] [claim unpreserved where defendant did not join in{**32 NY3d at 82} codefendants' request tha

2018New York courts have interpreted the CPL in this way and held that issues similar to the one presented in this appeal must be preserved by the specific defendant, even if raised by a codefendant ( see People v Toledo , 101 AD3d 571 , 571 [1st Dept 2012] ["Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court erred in failing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause, as he did not join in the challenges made to those jurors by other defendants"]; People v Hernandez , 136 AD3d 1055 , 1056 [2d Dept 2016] [claim unpreserved where defendant did not join in{**32 NY3d at 82} codefendants' request tha

2018New York courts have interpreted the CPL in this way and held that issues similar to the one presented in this appeal must be preserved by the specific defendant, even if raised by a codefendant ( see People v Toledo , 101 AD3d 571 , 571 [1st Dept 2012] ["Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court erred in failing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause, as he did not join in the challenges made to those jurors by other defendants"]; People v Hernandez , 136 AD3d 1055 , 1056 [2d Dept 2016] [claim unpreserved where defendant did not join in{**32 NY3d at 82} codefendants' request tha

2018New York courts have interpreted the CPL in this way and held that issues similar to the one presented in this appeal must be preserved by the specific defendant, even if raised by a codefendant ( see People v Toledo , 101 AD3d 571 , 571 [1st Dept 2012] ["Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court erred in failing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause, as he did not join in the challenges made to those jurors by other defendants"]; People v Hernandez , 136 AD3d 1055 , 1056 [2d Dept 2016] [claim unpreserved where defendant did not join in{**32 NY3d at 82} codefendants' request tha

2018New York courts have interpreted the CPL in this way and held that issues similar to the one presented in this appeal must be preserved by the specific defendant, even if raised by a codefendant ( see People v Toledo , 101 AD3d 571 , 571 [1st Dept 2012] ["Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court erred in failing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause, as he did not join in the challenges made to those jurors by other defendants"]; People v Hernandez , 136 AD3d 1055 , 1056 [2d Dept 2016] [claim unpreserved where defendant did not join in{**32 NY3d at 82} codefendants' request tha

2009The right to call witnesses at a criminal proceeding is not absolute (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336-337 [1990]), and the defendant’s request was not supported by a “bona fide factual predicate” (People v Witherspoon, 66 NY2d 973, 974 [1985]) demonstrating that the witness might provide material, noncumulative evidence (see People v Smith, 37 AD3d 302, 303 [2007]; People v Bailey, 179 AD2d 662 [1992]; People v Rucks, 175 AD2d 213, 214 [1991]).

1995Where, as here, defendant challenged only the sufficiency of the information the police possessed prior to his arrest rather than its reliability, the People were not required to produce the "send ing officer” as a witness at the suppression hearing (People v Jordan, 178 AD2d 1009, 1010 , lv denied 79 NY2d 920 ; see, People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 416 ).

1993Under the circumstances here, the court did not err by denying the defendant’s request to call the complainant as a witness at the suppression hearing (see, People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 15 ; People v Chipp, supra, at 337-339 ).

1992This issue is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not raise the reliability of the information transmitted to the arresting officer as an issue at the hearing (see, People v Weston, 56 NY2d 844 ; People v Tyson, 160 AD2d 826 ).

1992The defendant’s contention that the People were required to produce the undercover officer as a witness at the suppression hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Weston, 56 NY2d 844 ; People v Taylor, 172 AD2d 784 ) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47 , cert denied 469 US 852 ).

1992The defendant’s contention that the People were required to produce the undercover officer as a witness at the suppression hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Weston, 56 NY2d 844 ; People v Taylor, 172 AD2d 784 ) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47 , cert denied 469 US 852 ).

1992The defendant’s contention that the People were required to produce the undercover officer as a witness at the suppression hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Weston, 56 NY2d 844 ; People v Taylor, 172 AD2d 784 ) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47 , cert denied 469 US 852 ).

1990This issue is unpreserved for our review because defendant made no specific challenge to the reliability of Officer Conley’s information (see, People v Rogers, 152 AD2d 947, 948 , lv denied 74 NY2d 851 ; see also, People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 416 ).

1989The prosecution was not required to turn the written statement over to the defendant pursuant to CPL 240.44, since the complainant was not called as a witness at the suppression hearing (see, People v Mills, 142 AD2d 653 ).

1989The record, in any event, establishes that the police had probable cause to arrest and search the defendant and that the written statement, if produced, would not have affected the ultimate decision on the issues in question (see, People v Kent, 143 AD2d 278 ).

1987It could not be anticipated by the prosecution, the witness or the defendant that his conviction, upon his plea of guilty, would subsequently be reversed by this court (People v Walls, 74 AD2d 833 ), and that the trial at issue would take place.

1979It is well settled that evidence missing at suppression but adduced at trial cannot be used to supply a deficiency or to buttress a weakness in evaluating the validity of a suppression order (People v Brockett, 64 AD2d 612 ).