People v. Daley

205 A.D.3d 922

166 N.Y.S.3d 566 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Courtney DALEY, appellant.

2019–14582

Ind. No. 379/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—January 4, 2022

May 18, 2022

Richard M. Langone, Garden City, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and Libbi L. Vilher of counsel), for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Tammy Robbins, J.), rendered December 16, 2019, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and operating a motor vehicle with excessively tinted windows, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

In November 2019, the defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree and operating a motor vehicle with excessively tinted windows arising out of the defendant's arrest after a traffic stop of the vehicle the defendant was driving. The defendant's contention that an order of protection, which was the basis of the criminal contempt charge, should have been suppressed on the grounds that the People failed to prove that the police had probable cause to stop his vehicle is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant never moved to suppress the order of protection (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Gayot, 164 A.D.3d 1259, 1259, 80 N.Y.S.3d 914 ; People v. Hines, 289 A.D.2d 40, 40, 733 N.Y.S.2d 608 ) and the court never decided the legality of the traffic stop or the admissibility of this evidence (see CPL 470.05[2] ; see e.g. People v. Watts, 309 A.D.2d 628, 629, 766 N.Y.S.2d 22 ). We decline to review the defendant's contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15(5) (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to each of the charges for which the defendant was convicted was not against the...