Opinion
March 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.).
There was reasonable suspicion to frisk defendant and detain him pending identification by the victims (People v. Cook, 179 A.D.2d 572, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1047). Within minutes of the crime, the officers received several transmissions describing defendant and his accomplice and their flight from the crime scene in a specific taxicab, and indicating that one was armed with a meat cleaver and the other carried a knife. The cab driver led the officers to the building where he had discharged defendant and the accomplice, and defendant, who matched the description provided, was stopped in the lobby of the building. Thereafter, the officers' search failed to confirm defendant's claim that he left some blankets on the roof where he had slept that night.
The prosecutor properly questioned defendant about his drug use and association with thieves, where, in his direct testimony, one of the explanations proffered by defendant for his presence in the building where the proceeds of the crime were discovered and for his possession of some of the property was that he had purchased the property from an admitted thief and that this particular building was known as a crack den where stolen goods were bought and sold (see, People v. Ferguson, 190 A.D.2d 610, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 970).
A 911 tape containing an officer's transmission of one of the victims' detailed descriptions of the perpetrators was admissible in order "to demonstrate that the particular conditions at least allowed the witness to make observations, whether accurate or not", and to provide the jury with an opportunity to compare defendant with the description provided shortly after the crime (People v. Huertas, 75 N.Y.2d 487, 492; People v. Guerra, 168 A.D.2d 394, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 906).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.