contention hearing in New York

2017However, the error in admitting that statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Cruz, 149 AD3d 774, 775 [2017]).

1993The County Court erred in admitting into evidence the key to room 3C but we agree with the People’s contention that the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ).

2017In any event, while the People do not dispute that the preamble read to the defendant violated the principles enunciated in People v Dunbar ( 24 NY3d 304 [2014]) and rendered the subsequent Miranda warnings inadequate and ineffective in advising the defendant of his rights (see People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d at 316 ; People v Marino, 135 AD3d 877 [2016]; People v Rivera, 128 AD3d 1100 [2015]), any error in the admission of the defendant’s statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016We agree with the defendant’s contention that the hearing court should have suppressed his statements to the police because the conduct of the interrogating detective vitiated the effectiveness of the Miranda warnings (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; see People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d 304 [2014]).

2025The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Maxwell , 89 AD3d 1108, 1109), and the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668).

2016Here, the defendant’s contention that defense counsel’s conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record and, thus, constitutes a “mixed claim[ ] of ineffective assistance” (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly relied upon the fellow-officer rule to conclude that his arrest was supported by probable cause is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 290 [2006]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012] [decided herewith]; People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]).

2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly relied upon the fellow-officer rule to conclude that his arrest was supported by probable cause is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 290 [2006]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012] [decided herewith]; People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]).

2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly relied upon the fellow-officer rule to conclude that his arrest was supported by probable cause is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 290 [2006]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012] [decided herewith]; People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]).

2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly relied upon the fellow-officer rule to conclude that his arrest was supported by probable cause is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 290 [2006]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012] [decided herewith]; People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]).

2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly relied upon the fellow-officer rule to conclude that his arrest was supported by probable cause is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 290 [2006]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012] [decided herewith]; People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]).

2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly relied upon the fellow-officer rule to conclude that his arrest was supported by probable cause is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 290 [2006]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012] [decided herewith]; People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]).

2014Defendant’s remaining contention with respect to the admissibility of his confession is that his waiver of Miranda rights was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent because one of the investigators told him that he “did not need an attorney.” Because defendant “failed to raise this specific contention at the hearing or in his motion papers, this issue is unpreserved for [our] review” (People v Grace, 245 AD2d 387 , 388 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 941 [1998]; see People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011, 1012 [1976]; People v Louisias, 29 AD3d 1017, 1018-1019 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 814 [2006]).

2014Defendant’s remaining contention with respect to the admissibility of his confession is that his waiver of Miranda rights was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent because one of the investigators told him that he “did not need an attorney.” Because defendant “failed to raise this specific contention at the hearing or in his motion papers, this issue is unpreserved for [our] review” (People v Grace, 245 AD2d 387 , 388 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 941 [1998]; see People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011, 1012 [1976]; People v Louisias, 29 AD3d 1017, 1018-1019 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 814 [2006]).

2019The defendant's contention that his waiver of Miranda rights ( see Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436 ) was rendered invalid by a police officer's pre- Miranda questioning of the defendant regarding whether he knew why he had been brought to the station house, and the officer's pre- Miranda statement to the defendant that the police wished to speak to the defendant regarding an incident that occurred at a particular location one week earlier, is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move to suppress his statements to the police on this ground or otherwise raise the issue bef

2017However, the error in admitting that statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Cruz, 149 AD3d 774, 775 [2017]).

2020In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Maldonado , 167 AD3d at 1048; People v Williams , 149 AD3d at 986 ; People v Pazmini , 132 AD3d 1015, 1015 ; People v Fani , 59 AD3d 460, 460 ).

2018In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Williams , 149 AD3d at 986 ; People v Pazmini , 132 AD3d 1015 , 1015; People v Fani , 59 AD3d 460 , 460).

2017In any event, while the People do not dispute that the preamble read to the defendant violated the principles enunciated in People v Dunbar ( 24 NY3d 304 [2014]) and rendered the subsequent Miranda warnings inadequate and ineffective in advising the defendant of his rights (see People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d at 316 ; People v Marino, 135 AD3d 877 [2016]; People v Rivera, 128 AD3d 1100 [2015]), any error in the admission of the defendant’s statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016In any event, while we agree that the preamble read to the defendant violated the principles enunciated in People v Dunbar ( 24 NY3d 304, 316 [2014]) and rendered the subsequent Miranda warnings inadequate and ineffective in advising the defendant of his rights (id. at 316; People v Marino, 135 AD3d 877 [2016] ; People v Rivera, 128 AD3d 1100 [2015]), any error in the admission of that statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2022The defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective is without merit ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 ).

2019The defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective with respect to the sentencing proceeding is without merit ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 ).

2020The defendant's contention that his waiver of his right to a jury trial was invalid is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Magnano , 77 NY2d 941, 942 ; People v Johnson , 51 NY2d 986, 987 ; People v Badden , 13 AD3d 463, 463 ; People v Brunson , 307 AD2d 323, 324 ).

2005In any event, the record does not support the defendant’s contention that the waiver was invalid (see People v Brunson, 307 AD2d 323, 324 [2003]; People v Davis, 277 AD2d 248, 249 [2000]; People v Wheeler, 258 AD2d 542 [1999]).

2018In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see CPL 320.10[2]; People v Badden , 13 AD3d 463 ; People v Brunson , 307 AD2d 323, 324 ; People v Jones , 293 AD2d 627, 628 ; People v Soyouzov , 235 AD2d 439 ).

2012In any event, the record establishes that the defendant’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see People v Torres, 24 AD3d at 692 ; People v Hinton, 6 AD3d 724, 724 [2004]; People v Solouzo, 235 AD2d 439, 439 [1997]).

2026The defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was invalid is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Johnson , 51 NY2d 986, 987 ; People v Maharaj , 225 AD3d 628 , 628).

2022The defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was invalid is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Johnson , 51 NY2d 986, 987 ; People v Jones , 181 AD3d 714, 715 ; People v Maldonado , 167 AD3d 1047 , 1048).

2022In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Williams , 149 AD3d 986 ; People v Fani , 59 AD3d 460, 460 ; People v Butler , 17 AD3d 379, 380 ).

2020In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Maldonado , 167 AD3d at 1048; People v Williams , 149 AD3d at 986 ; People v Pazmini , 132 AD3d 1015, 1015 ; People v Fani , 59 AD3d 460, 460 ).

2022The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ).

2017The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1982]).

2022In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Williams , 149 AD3d 986 ; People v Fani , 59 AD3d 460, 460 ; People v Butler , 17 AD3d 379, 380 ).

2020In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Fani , 59 AD3d 460 , 460; People v Butler , 17 AD3d 379 , 380).

2010“It is axiomatic that an officer may only seize and take into custody an individual when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime” (People v Diaz, 131 AD2d 690, 694 [1987]; see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976]; People v Dawkins, 163 AD2d 322, 323 [1990]).

1995The police had reasonable suspicion to stop the white Camaro which the defendant was driving (see, CPL 140.50 [1]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 ) based on the observations of the police officer who initially saw the white Camaro double parked in the road.