People v Cai Lin

[*1] People v Cai Lin 2018 NY Slip Op 50722(U) Decided on May 23, 2018 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 23, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Edmead, JJ.
570411/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Cai Lin, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered March 15, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting her of attempted trademark counterfeiting in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered March 15, 2016, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Martin, 112 AD3d 453, 454 [2013]). The arresting officer's observations of the defendant at the corner of Canal Street and Broadway, wherein he displayed handbags, engaged pedestrians in conversation, then ran upon seeing the officer while "clutching" two handbags bearing counterfeit designer labels, established probable cause for defendant's arrest (see People v Jie Chen, 129 AD3d 548 [2015]; People v Dunbar, 72 AD3d 566 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 804 [2010]; People v Lewis, 50 AD3d 595 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [2008]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determination concerning credibility, including its assessment of testimony that defendant was offering for sale counterfeit Michael Kors and Prada handbags (see People v Ouedraogo, 39 Misc 3d 145[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50822[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 958 [2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 23, 2018