Opinion
3484.
Decided April 27, 2004.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J. at suppression hearing; Joan C. Sudolnik, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered January 25, 2002, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Larry Sheehan, Jr., Scarsdale, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Megan E. Joy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Gonzalez, JJ.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. An officer observed defendant casing vehicles and followed him for several blocks while he continued his casing behavior, whereupon defendant disappeared from the officer's view momentarily. When he reappeared he was towing an apparently new machine not previously in his possession, and abruptly changed the direction in which he was headed. These circumstances gave the officer at least an objective reason to suspect criminal behavior, and to conduct a common-law inquiry. When defendant gave an explanation for his possession of the machine that the officer had reason to believe was false, the totality of circumstances created reasonable suspicion that defendant stole the machine, and justified his brief detention for further inquiry ( see e.g. People v. Sims, 127 A.D.2d 712). In view of defendant's violent response to the officer's attempt to investigate the matter, the officer was also justified in handcuffing defendant ( see People v. Foster, 85 N.Y.2d 1012; People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. In addition to drawing proper inferences from defendant's recent, exclusive and unexplained possession of the stolen power washer ( see People v. Galbo, 218 N.Y. 283, 290; People v. Costello, 162 A.D.2d 276, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 854), the jury was able to compare defendant's appearance with that of the person depicted in a surveillance videotape of the crime.
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion ( see People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.