Case ID: ad2d_144/html/0583-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathan Huber, Appellant.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered April 11, 1986, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and robbery in the third degree, 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 certain statements made by him to the police.
    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).
    The record establishes that the statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials were made after he was fully informed of his Miranda rights. Contrary to the defendant’s contention there is no requirement that police officers permit the family members of a competent 19-year-old adult, in custody, to communicate with him (see, People v Crimmins, 64 NY2d 1072; People v Strawder, 134 AD2d 630; People v Casiano, 123 AD2d 712, Iv denied 69 NY2d 744).
    Moreover, since one of the People’s witnesses gave testimony which affirmatively damaged their case, they were entitled to introduce evidence that the witness had made a sworn statement which was contrary to such testimony (CPL 60.35; People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44). It is of no moment that they may not have been surprised by such testimony (People v Magee, 128 AD2d 811; People v Davis, 118 AD2d 796; People v De Jesus, 101 AD2d 111, affd 64 NY2d 1126).
    Under the circumstances, the defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
    The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.