People v Gayle (Rudolph)

[*1] People v Gayle (Rudolph) 2007 NY Slip Op 52431(U) [18 Misc 3d 127(A)] Decided on December 21, 2007 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 21, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2005-1858 Q CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Rudolph Gayle, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph A. Zayas, J., on suppression motion; Fernando M. Camacho, J., at trial and sentencing), rendered November 28, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

The sole issue raised by defendant on appeal is a challenge to the hearing court's denial of his motion to suppress a knife that the police recovered from him following a traffic stop. He argues that the unsignaled lane changes for which he was stopped did not constitute violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and that the police therefore did not have probable cause for the stop. This specific issue was not raised
in the court below and is thus not preserved for appellate review (see generally People v Valverde, 13 AD3d 658, 659 [2004]). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. The hearing court fully credited the police officer's testimony, and we see no reason to disturb this determination of credibility (see People v Cooper, 38 AD3d 678, 679 [2007]). The police officer's observations that defendant twice changed lanes without signaling clearly established that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 (see People v Rice, 44 AD3d 247 [2007]). These observations consequently provided the officer with probable cause for the stop. Defendant's remaining contentions are also not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. [*2]

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 21, 2007