Opinion
2015–09709 Ind.No. 2333/13
04-17-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose ROSA, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Jimei L. Hon of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Jimei L. Hon of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.The defendant's failure to base his speedy trial motion on the specific contentions that he now raises on appeal renders those contentions unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Owens , 138 A.D.3d 1035, 1035, 28 N.Y.S.3d 630 ; People v. Randall–Whitaker , 55 A.D.3d 931, 931–932, 869 N.Y.S.2d 555 ). In any event, upon reviewing the record, the total time chargeable to the People was less than the six-month time period provided by CPL 30.30(1)(a). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied (see People v. Patel , 160 A.D.3d 530, 530, 71 N.Y.S.3d 879 ; People v. Lewins , 151 A.D.3d 575, 576–578, 58 N.Y.S.3d 313 ; People v. Brash , 228 A.D.2d 687, 687, 644 N.Y.S.2d 980 ).
The Supreme Court's ruling permitting the People to offer evidence of a telephone call the defendant made while in pretrial detention at Rikers Island Correctional Facility did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. Contrary to the defendant's arguments, he impliedly consented to the monitoring and recording of his telephone conversations by using the telephones despite being notified in several different ways that such calls were being monitored (see People v. Diaz , ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 01260, 2019 WL 722345 [2019] ; People v. Chrisostome , 167 A.D.3d 644, 644–645, 86 N.Y.S.3d 903 ; People v. Koonce , 111 A.D.3d 1277, 1279, 974 N.Y.S.2d 207 ). Moreover, the defendant's contention that his consent was involuntary is without merit (see People v. Chrisostome , 167 A.D.3d at 645, 86 N.Y.S.3d 903 ; People v. Cisse , 149 A.D.3d 435, 436, 53 N.Y.S.3d 614, affd 32 N.Y.3d 1198, 96 N.Y.S.3d 165, 120 N.E.3d 364 [2019] ).
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.