People v. SimonPeople v. Simon
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In support of defendant’s motion to renew the suppression motion, defense counsel asserted that newly discovered evidence warranted reopening the hearing for a determination of whether a Payton violation had occurred. County Court properly denied that motion. "Because defendant had knowledge of the facts surrounding his arrest, those facts may not be considered 'additional pertinent facts * * * discovered by the defendant which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion’ (CPL 710.40 [4])” (People v Mitchell-Benetiz,
The showup conducted at the crime scene was not rendered unduly suggestive by the fact that defendant was viewed in the company of police officers (see, People v Duuvon,
The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant with respect to the facts underlying certain prior convictions (see, People v Teen,
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes,