4204. PEOPLE, res, v. WAYNE MIDDLETON, def-ap — Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (David Crow of counsel), and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York (Bryan McArdle of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Karen Schlossberg of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J. at suppression hearing; James M. Burke, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered October 1, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth and fifth degrees and petit larceny, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police had probable cause to believe that defendant was acting in concert with the codefendant in stealing money from a purse set up by the police as a decoy in a large toy store (see e.g. People v. Arriaga, 204 AD2d 96 [1st Dept 1994]). Viewed in totality, the only reasonable explanation of the two defendants’ course of conduct was that they were a team of thieves. They did not look at merchandise or otherwise appear to be in the store for any legitimate reason. The two men approached the purse together, and as the codefendant tried to steal a wallet from the purse, defendant stood close by, engaging in behavior indicative of being a lookout while also positioning himself so as to conceal the codefendant’s actions. Notably, defendant and the codefendant repeated the same behavior pattern twice, with the codefendant succeeding on his second attempt to steal from the purse. Rather than being conclusory, the police testimony about defendant’s actions was sufficiently specific. Moreover, the officers were entitled to rely on their expertise regarding the manner in which this particular kind of larceny is commonly committed by a team (see generally People v. Valentine, 17 NY2d 128, 132 [1966]). Defendant’s implausible theory of having been merely present while his companion committed a larceny is contrary to both the evidence and common sense.
