PEOPLE v. MEROLLE (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Ward, J., at hearings;  Neil Ross, J., at plea;  Miriam Best, J., at sentencing), rendered October 20, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony offense, to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in conducting the suppression hearing in defendant's absence.  The People made diligent but unsuccessful efforts to locate defendant and, under all the circumstances, the court had “no reason to believe that an adjournment would result in defendant's presence” (People v. Michael, 293 A.D.2d 428, 740 N.Y.S.2d 865 [1st Dept. 2002], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 537, 752 N.Y.S.2d 598, 782 N.E.2d 576 [2002]).

Defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause.  The officers received a radio run indicating a robbery at a hotel on 39th Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues, which included a description of the suspect as white, 5 foot 10, and wearing a black jacket, and stated that he fled in a white Ford. The officers then permissibly followed a white Ford they spotted traveling away from the hotel on the block where the robbery allegedly occurred, immediately after receiving the radio transmission.  After following the car for 20 to 30 minutes, the officers saw defendant, who fit the physical description, emerge from the car and enter an apartment building.  At that time, the officers possessed at least a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, authorizing a common-law inquiry (see People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 [1992]).  As part of that inquiry, the officers permissibly directed defendant to descend the stairs back to the lobby, put the backpacks he was carrying down, and stop moving (see People v. Bora, 191 A.D.2d 384, 385, 595 N.Y.S.2d 437 [1st Dept.1993], affd 83 N.Y.2d 531, 611 N.Y.S.2d 796, 634 N.E.2d 168 [1994]).  Shortly thereafter, when the victim identified defendant in a show-up, the officers possessed probable cause to arrest (see People v. Flow, 37 A.D.3d 303, 304, 831 N.Y.S.2d 129 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 843, 840 N.Y.S.2d 770, 872 N.E.2d 883 [2007]).