Opinion
2012-06-12
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nick ZARBHANELIAN, Defendant–Appellant.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Laura Boyd of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Caleb Kruckenberg of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Laura Boyd of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Caleb Kruckenberg of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered June 30, 2009, as amended August 18, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of two to six years, unanimously affirmed.
The court's summary denial of defendant's motion to suppress statements was proper. Although there was neither a hearing nor a trial, the record is sufficiently clear that the only statement made by defendant was his name. An arrestee's name is the “quintessential routine booking question” ( People v. McCloud, 50 A.D.3d 379, 380, 855 N.Y.S.2d 113 [2008],lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 738, 864 N.Y.S.2d 397, 894 N.E.2d 661 [2008] ), and this pedigree information was not subject to suppression ( see People v. Rodney, 85 N.Y.2d 289, 293, 624 N.Y.S.2d 95, 648 N.E.2d 471 [1995] ). Moreover, defendant's name was not incriminating under the circumstances of this case, and the People would have had no reason to use defendant's acknowledgment of his name against him for any purpose.
In any event, it would be an exercise in futility for this Court to order a suppression hearing. At such a hearing the People would simply reiterate their present position that the only statement was defendant's name.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.