PEOPLE v. MOORE (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[12] ), speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [d] ), and failing to signal (§ 1163 [b] ).  Contrary to the contention of defendant, the police had probable cause to stop the vehicle that he was driving based upon his commission of traffic violations (see People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 348-349, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638;  People v. Garcia, 30 A.D.3d 833, 817 N.Y.S.2d 723).   Defendant's general motion to dismiss did not preserve for our review any challenge to the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence advanced on appeal (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;  People v. Sweeney, 15 A.D.3d 917, 788 N.Y.S.2d 775, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 891, 798 N.Y.S.2d 736, 831 N.E.2d 981) and, contrary to defendant's further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence despite discrepancies in the testimony of the police officers concerning the timing of events (see People v. Green, 35 A.D.3d 1197, 826 N.Y.S.2d 921;  see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672;  People v. Davis, 260 A.D.2d 726, 728-729, 687 N.Y.S.2d 803, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 968, 695 N.Y.S.2d 54, 716 N.E.2d 1099).   Finally, because defendant committed the crimes herein before the effective date of the Drug Law Reform Act, the indeterminate term of imprisonment imposed by Supreme Court is legal (see People v. Utsey, 7 N.Y.3d 398, 403-404, 822 N.Y.S.2d 475, 855 N.E.2d 791).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: