PEOPLE v. KING (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Timothy P. Mazzei, J.), rendered July 18, 2022, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

On a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, and the hearing court's credibility determinations are entitled to great deference (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761;  People v. Williams, 222 AD3d 787, 788;  People v. Henderson, 197 AD3d 663, 664).

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements he made to law enforcement officials.  At the hearing, the court properly credited the testimony of police officers that, before any pursuit began, each observed what appeared to be part of a firearm protruding from a fanny pack worn across the defendant's chest.  The court further credited the police officers' testimony that, as the defendant fled, he held both of his arms near his chest and, once tackled, kept his arms underneath his body near the fanny pack.  These observations justified the police officers' pursuit and arrest of the defendant (see People v. Williams, 222 AD3d at 788;  People v. Edwards, 222 AD2d 603, 604).

Additionally, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motions to strike the certificate of compliance and to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a).  Under CPL 245.50 and CPL 30.30, a valid certificate of compliance and statement of readiness require the People to have exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries before filing the initial certificate, but “ ‘a valid certificate of compliance and readiness declaration will not be rendered illusory by subsequent diligent disclosures made in good faith’ ” (People v. Macaluso, 230 AD3d 1158, 1159, quoting People v. McCarty, 221 AD3d 1360, 1362;  see People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200).  Here, contrary to the defendants' contentions, the initial certificate of compliance was proper, and the subsequent supplementation did not render the People's statement of readiness illusory (see People v. Macaluso, 230 AD3d at 1159–1160;  People v. Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1217–1218).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621;  People v. Ortiz, 230 AD3d 1163, 1163), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of resisting arrest, and, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.  As charged in this case, a person resists arrest “when he [or she] intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself [or herself] or another person” (Penal Law § 205.30).  Here, the evidence established that the police officers effectuated an authorized arrest of the defendant (see People v. Maschoun, 186 AD3d 1402, 1403).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is without merit.  Most of the challenged remarks were either fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Ortiz, 230 AD3d at 1165;  People v. Fuhrtz, 115 AD3d 760, 760) or fair response to defense counsel's attack on the police officers' conduct and the adequacy of the investigation (see People v. Long, 222 AD3d 881, 882;  People v. Fuhrtz, 115 AD3d at 760).  To the extent that any of the prosecutor's remarks were improper, the statements “were not so flagrant or pervasive as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial” (People v. Long, 222 AD3d at 882 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Ortiz, 230 AD3d at 1165).

BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.