THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. ELIJAH FELDMAN (2026)

.2022–01886

2025–04596

Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Barbara Zolot of counsel) for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O'Shea of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gilbert C. Hong, J., at suppression hearing;  Laura Ward, J., at trial and sentencing), rendered April 25, 2022, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 18 years to life;  and order, same court (Ward, J.), entered on or about October 24, 2024, denying defendant's motion to set aside his sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied suppression of the gun recovered from defendant.  Based on the totality of the circumstance, including relying on an informant, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant (see People v. Colon, 95 AD3d 420, 420 [1st Dept 2012] [“police acted on information that was far more reliable than an anonymous tip”], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012];  People v. Castr0, 115 A.D.2d 433, 435 [1st Dept 1985], affd 68 N.Y.2d 850 [1086];  see also People v. Leighton R., 45 NY3d 266, 273–274 [2025] ).  In any event, when defendant pushed a detective and attempted to run, there was reasonable suspicion to forcibly detain him.  When defendant's face mask fell off, the police recognized defendant and knew that he had several open warrants, which provided probable cause to arrest (see People v. Currie, 131 AD3d 1265, 1265 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1144 [2016] ).

The court properly denied defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96–98 [1986] ).  His argument on appeal that the court “conflated” the second and third steps of Batson 's three-step analysis is unpreserved (see People v. Jenkins, 302 A.D.2d 247, 248 [1st Dept 2003] [the defendant's challenge “to the procedures by which the court disposed of his Batson application ․ is unpreserved”], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 583 [2003];  cf.  Pitchford v. Cain, 608 U.S. 391, 399–401 [2026];  see also People v. Jones, 99 N.Y.2d 264, 272 [2002];  People v. Reyes, 274 A.D.2d 323, 324 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 870 [2000] ).  In any event, his claim is unavailing.  The court specifically alluded to the third step, in which defense counsel could argue that the prosecution's proffered race-neutral reasons for challenging the two prospective jurors at issue were pretextual, and counsel made such arguments.  The court correctly found that these arguments were unpersuasive.

The court also properly denied defendant's CPL 440.20 motion to set aside his sentence.  This Court has rejected the argument that United States v. Erlinger (602 U.S. 821 [2024] ) requires that periods of tolling must be found by a jury (see People v. Young, — AD3d —, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 02883, * 7–8 [1st Dept 2026] ).  Defendant's argument, based on People v. Hughes (22 NY3d 44, 51–52 [2013] ) that the sentence imposed on him was unconstitutionally harsh in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 U.S. 1 [2022] ) is also not compelling.

We perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence.