People v. O'Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Connor

222 A.D.2d 705, 636 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13890

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 705 (People v. O'Connor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. O'Connor, 222 A.D.2d 705, 636 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 13, 1993, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In December 1992, the defendant and several codefendants (see, People v Martinez, 222 AD2d 702 [decided herewith]), kidnapped a victim and held him in a building on the Horace Harding Expressway in Queens for several days. The perpetrators demanded approximately $60,000 in ransom money (later reduced to about $30,000) from the victim’s relatives and friends. The evidence at trial showed that this defendant punched, kicked, and threatened to kill the victim with a gun. When police officers arrived at the scene, they found the defendant guarding the handcuffed victim in a small back room of the building, and arrested him. The officers subsequently recovered the gun from a wastebasket where the victim indicated it had been hidden.

These facts and circumstances, when viewed together, convinced the experienced officers that the defendant was a participant in the kidnapping; hence, there was probable cause for his arrest (see, People v Oden, 36 NY2d 382, 384; see also, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423; People v Pegram, 203 AD2d 391; People v Fernandez, 185 AD2d 944, 945; People v Javier, 175 AD2d 182). Moreover, the gun seized pursuant to the lawful arrest was properly used to prove the defendant’s guilt at trial (see, e.g., Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471; People v Young, 55 NY2d 419, 424, cert denied 459 US 848).

[706]*706During the trial, which lasted more than three weeks, a sworn juror became "unavailable for continued service” pursuant to CPL 270.35. The court conducted a reasonably thorough inquiry and recited on the record the facts and reasons for the dismissal of the juror, as required (see, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69, 73; cf., People v Peregda, 164 AD2d 849; People v Paniaqua, 160 AD2d 334).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 13, 1993, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In December 1992, the defendant and several codefendants (see, People v Martinez, 222 AD2d 702 [decided herewith]), kidnapped a victim and held him in a building on the Horace Harding Expressway in Queens for several days. The perpetrators demanded approximately $60,000 in ransom money (later reduced to about $30,000) from the victim’s relatives and friends. The evidence at trial showed that this defendant punched, kicked, and threatened to kill the victim with a gun. When police officers arrived at the scene, they found the defendant guarding the handcuffed victim in a small back room of the building, and arrested him. The officers subsequently recovered the gun from a wastebasket where the victim indicated it had been hidden.

These facts and circumstances, when viewed together, convinced the experienced officers that the defendant was a participant in the kidnapping; hence, there was probable cause for his arrest (see, People v Oden, 36 NY2d 382, 384; see also, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423; People v Pegram, 203 AD2d 391; People v Fernandez, 185 AD2d 944, 945; People v Javier, 175 AD2d 182). Moreover, the gun seized pursuant to the lawful arrest was properly used to prove the defendant’s guilt at trial (see, e.g., Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471; People v Young, 55 NY2d 419, 424, cert denied 459 US 848).

[706]*706During the trial, which lasted more than three weeks, a sworn juror became "unavailable for continued service” pursuant to CPL 270.35. The court conducted a reasonably thorough inquiry and recited on the record the facts and reasons for the dismissal of the juror, as required (see, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69, 73; cf., People v Peregda, 164 AD2d 849; People v Paniaqua, 160 AD2d 334).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 705, 636 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oconnor-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack