The indictment charges the Defendant with one count of Manslaughter in the Second Degree pursuant to PL § 125.15(1), one count of Leaving the Scene of an Incident without Reporting Resulting in Death pursuant to VTL § 600(02)(A), and one count of Reckless Driving pursuant to VTL § 1212.

As part of their case-in-chief, the People seek to introduce statements made by the Defendant during and after his arrest. The Defendant moves to suppress the statements, arguing that the statements were illegally obtained as the officers lacked probable cause to seize and arrest the Defendant. Additionally, and in the alternative, the Defendant argues that the statements should be suppressed as they were made in violation of the Defendant's Miranda rights, and that the Defendant's statements were otherwise not voluntarily made.

A Huntley/Dunaway hearing was held before the Court on January 28, 2026. At the hearing, the People introduced testimony from Detective Herbert Wroten, whom the Court finds to be credible in all respects. The People further introduced NYPD DAS video surveillance depicting the suspect vehicle traveling southbound on the FDR Drive, license plate reader records from the DAS System, photographs depicting damage to the suspect vehicle, a 2023 police accident report involving the Defendant, body-worn camera from the 2023 accident depicting the Defendant, video surveillance feeds from East 12th Street depicting where the vehicle was parked and eventually recovered, an audio recorded conversation between the Defendant and Det. Wroten, and video/audio surveillance depicting the Defendant's Mirandized interview at the 17th Precinct.

Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court makes the following findings of [*2]fact and conclusions of law.

Detective Herbert Wroten, Shield 2773 of the 17th Precinct Detective Squad, testified that he has been employed by the NYPD for 17 years. He stated that he spent the first twelve years of his career at the Midtown North Precinct until his promotion to the rank of Detective in November of 2021. At that time, Det. Wroten was transferred to the 17th Precinct Detective Squad, where he works to this day. Det. Wroten stated that the 17th Precinct covers Midtown East, extending from 34th Street to 59th Street, from the East River to the east side of Park Avenue. That command area includes portions of the FDR Drive, specifically the tunnel that bypasses the United Nations.

Det. Wroten stated that on February 1, 2025, he was working a tour beginning at 3:45pm and ending at 1:00am. He testified that shortly after 7:30pm, he became involved in an investigation into an incident that occurred on the FDR Drive near the United Nations Tunnel. Det. Wroten initially became aware of the investigation at approximately 7:30pm when patrol officers contacted the 17th Precinct Detective Squad to notify them of a leaving the scene of an incident investigation resulting in an injury on the FDR Drive. Patrol officers also informed the Detective Squad that one individual, a man named Timur Ilizarov, had been arrested in relation to the incident.

Det. Wroten stated that he had an opportunity to interview Timur Ilizarov, who stated that he was involved in an incident while he was driving on the FDR Drive wherein another driver attempted to cut him off. Mr. Ilizarov stated that he believed that the other vehicle had sideswiped his vehicle. He stated that he was attempting to get the other driver's attention because the vehicles were so close together that they were unable to continue traveling forward. At that point, Mr. Ilizarov stated that his passenger, Givi Okrotcheldze, exited the vehicle and proceeded towards the other vehicle. That vehicle then hit Mr. Okrotcheldze and sped away. Mr. Ilizarov described the other driver as "younger looking" but was not able to provide additional descriptive factors. Based on his face-to-face interaction with Mr. Ilizarov, Det. Wroten described Mr. Ilizarov as an older, bald gentleman with a large beard. Mr. Ilizarov described Mr. Okrotcheldze as a lighter-skinned individual with long hair and approximately 5'8" or 5'9" tall.

Det. Wroten stated that he was unable to interview Mr. Okrotcheldze the night of the incident because Mr. Okrotcheldze was immediately transported to Bellevue Hospital due to injuries he sustained during the incident. Based on Det. Wroten's interactions from staff at Bellevue Hospital, he learned that Mr. Okrotcheldze was unconscious and was receiving medical treatment.

Det. Wroten learned from Mr. Ilizarov that the vehicle that hit Mr. Okrotcheldze was a "redish looking" four-door sedan. Based on that information, Det. Wroten stated that he obtained video surveillance from the NYPD Domain Awareness System ["DAS"] which controls NYPD cameras across the city. That specific DAS camera was located just south of the United Nations Tunnel and captured a red four-door sedan matching the description of the suspect vehicle heading southbound on the FDR Drive immediately after the incident.

After reviewing that video surveillance, Det. Wroten stated that he was still unable to identify the make and model of the vehicle. Therefore, he attempted to locate additional video surveillance and license plate reader printouts in order to identify the suspect vehicle. Specifically, Det. Wroten identified NYPD DAS license plate reader data capturing a 2023 red Honda Accord four-door sedan with license plate LEN3495 crossing over the 3rd Avenue Bridge [*3]at approximately 6:48pm. The license plate reader report revealed that the vehicle was registered to a Mr. Filandro Ballinas who resided at 520 East 12th Street, in the County and State of New York. Det. Wroten testified that, based on the timing and the locations, the vehicle could have traveled from the Third Avenue Bridge to the incident location in the amount of time that elapsed between the license plate reader hit and the time of the incident.

Det. Wroten stated that the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the incident on the FDR Drive was captured on a NYPD marked patrol vehicle mounted license plate reader while the patrol vehicle was located at East 12th Street between Avenues B and C. Specifically, on February 1, 2025 at approximately 10:36pm, a license plate reader captured a red 2023 Honda Accord with license plate LEN 3495 parked on East 12th Street approximately half a block away from the home address of Filandro Ballinas, the registered owner of the vehicle.

Det. Wroten stated that, on February 2, 2025, the day following the incident, he personally observed the red Honda Accord with license plate LEN3495 parked at the location on East 12th Street. He observed that the car bore the license plate LEN3495 and that the vehicle had sustained minor damage to the rear passenger side of the vehicle. Specifically, Det. Wroten noted that the location of the damage matched the location of the purported contact between the vehicles on the FDR Drive the night prior.

Additionally, Det. Wroten was able to locate a 2023 accident report from the NYPD DAS System linking the Defendant, Jeffrey Ballinas, to the red Honda Accord with license plate LEN3495.

Det. Wroten then inquired with a school located on East 12th Street between Avenues B and C to see if there was any additional video surveillance depicting the area where the red four-door sedan was parked. As a result, Det. Wroten was able to recover video surveillance from February 1, 2025 at 7:47pm depicting the driver of the red Honda Accord walking around the car and inspecting the rear passenger side of the vehicle after parking the vehicle at the location. Det. Wroten stated that, based on the timing of the incident and the video surveillance recording, the vehicle could have traveled from the incident location on the FDR Drive to the location where the vehicle was parked in the amount of time that had elapsed. Det. Wroten also obtained video surveillance from a church located on that same block that depicted where the vehicle was parked. That video surveillance showed an individual matching the Defendant's description walking down the street after the vehicle had been parked.

On February 16, 2025, Det. Wroten learned from Mr. Okrotcheldze's wife and daughter that Mr. Okrotcheldze had passed away as a result of his injuries.

Det. Wroten testified that he spoke with a 911 caller who had observed the incident on the FDR Drive.^[FN1] The 911 caller described two vehicles, one red "sporty-looking" car and a "silver-looking" car, both side-by-side with the silver car on the right and the red car located to the left of the silver car. The 911 caller further stated that one of the occupants of the silver vehicle got out of the car and began banging on the red car. They further reported that the red vehicle drove away, hitting a man and knocking him to the ground.

Det. Wroten testified that on February 16, 2025, he and Det. Castro went to 520 East 12th Street, Apartment 4B to try and speak with Jeffrey Ballinas. When they arrived, a woman [*4]answered the door and stated that neither Filandro Ballinas (Jeffrey's father and the owner of the suspected vehicle) nor Jeffrey Ballinas were home. Det. Wroten and Det. Castro left their business cards with the woman and asked that Filandro and Jeffrey contact them when they returned home.

At approximately 4:45pm, Det. Wroten received a phone call to his department cell phone from an individual who identified himself as Jeffrey Ballinas. The call lasted 14-15 minutes; a large portion of the call was recorded. The first minute was not recorded, as another detective began recording while Det. Wroten was speaking with the Defendant. In that call, Det. Wroten asked the Defendant about an incident that had occurred on the FDR Drive. The Defendant initially stated in substance that, "it could have been any number of incidents [he has] been involved in on the FDR Drive," but eventually began to describe an incident in particular relating to two individuals in a grey car. Approximately nine minutes into the call, the Defendant asked for someone who spoke Spanish. At that point, Det. Cazares proceeded to have a conversation with the Defendant's father, Filandro Ballinas, in Spanish. Following that conversation, the Defendant returned to the call and agreed to meet with Det. Wroten at the 17th Precinct.

Approximately 20-30 minutes after the conclusion of the call, the Defendant voluntarily arrived at the 17th Precinct and was brought into interview room with Det. Wroten and Det. Castro. Det. Castro read the Defendant his Miranda warnings from a memorialized paper. After being advised of his Miranda rights, the Defendant declined to answer any questions and invoked right to counsel. Following the invocation of his rights, no further questions were posed to the Defendant and the interview was concluded.

Shortly after the conclusion of the interview, during arrest processing, the Defendant asked Det. Wroten, in sum and substance, "What should I do if I get into this situation again?" "My brother got arrested for something similar but they let him out with a ticket. Is that going to happen to me?" "Can I use the bathroom?" "Can I have some water?" "When will we be heading downtown?" Det. Wroten stated in substance that no force was used by officers against the Defendant to prompt these statements, nor were questions posed to the Defendant to prompt the Defendant's additional questions.

When a Defendant challenges the legality of a search and seizure, the People have the initial burden of establishing the legality of the police conduct. Once the Prosecution has met this burden, the Defendant has the ultimate burden to establish the illegality of the police conduct by a fair preponderance of the evidence. People v. Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367 (1971); People v. Malinski, 15 NY2d 86 (1965); People v. Clough, 70 AD3d 474 (1st Dept. 2010).

a. The Defendant's Arrest Was Based Upon Probable Cause

The Defendant first argues that probable cause did not exist for his arrest on February 16, 2025. Once assigned to investigate this incident on the evening of February 1, 2025, Det. Wroten spoke with one of the complaining witnesses, Mr. Ilizarov, who recounted observing a red sedan hit his friend, Givi Okrotcheldze and flee the scene following a dispute on the FDR Drive. Det. Wroten also spoke to an independent 911 caller who had observed the incident and called to report it to law enforcement officials. Det. Wroten initially learned that Mr. Okrotcheldze had [*5]been hospitalized as a result of his injuries and later learned that he passed away due to those injuries. Det. Wroten recovered extensive video surveillance showing the suspected red sedan entering the FDR Drive via the Third Avenue Bridge, then fleeing southbound following the incident with Mr. Ilizarov and Mr. Okrotcheldze, and parking in the area of East 12th Street between Avenues B and C. Det. Wroten identified the red sedan as a red Honda Accord with license plate LEN3495 registered to Filandro Ballinas. Video surveillance covering the block where the car was parked showed a male consistent with the appearance of Filandro Ballinas' son, Jeffrey Ballinas, appearing to inspect the car for damage. Det. Wroten spoke with the Defendant via phone prior to his arrest. During that phone call, the Defendant described an altercation on the FDR Drive that mirrored portions of the incident.

Based on the information obtained by Det. Wroten from February 1, 2025 until February 16, 2025, there was probable cause for this Defendant's arrest for Manslaughter in the Second Degree pursuant to PL § 125.15(1) and other related charges. People v. De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 (1976), citing CPL 140.50(1); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; People v. Cantor, 36 NY2d 106, 111 (NY Ct. App, 1975). ("Where a police officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, the CPL authorizes a forcible stop and detention of that person.")

For these reasons, the motion to suppress due to lack of probable cause is denied.

b. The Defendant's Statements Were Voluntarily Made

The Defendant next contends that the noticed statements made to the police should be suppressed because they were illegally obtained. Specifically, he claims that they: (1) are tainted fruit of an unlawful arrest; (2) were made after he was subjected to custodial interrogation without first being advised of his Miranda rights; and (3) were otherwise involuntary in nature. As explained supra, officers had probable cause to arrest the Defendant.

The People first seek to admit evidence of statements made by the Defendant over the phone to Det. Wroten prior to his arrest. This phone conversation occurred after Det. Wroten stopped by the Defendant's apartment while he was not home and left a business card with the Defendant's mother, prompting the Defendant to call Det. Wroten later that evening. During this phone call, the Defendant admitted, in sum and substance, to being in an altercation on the FDR Drive involving two individuals in a grey car.

As an initial matter, this statement was not the product of custodial interrogation. The Defendant was not under arrest at the time the statement was made. In fact, the Defendant was at home in his apartment, while Det. Wroten was located inside of the 17th Precinct Detective Squad. While Det. Wroten did request that the Defendant come down to the 17th Precinct under the guise of obtaining a copy of the Defendant's driver's license and effectuating an accident report, this does not equate to the Defendant being in custody at the time that the statements were made.

Nor were the statements involuntary in nature. "Police may generally engage in deception while investigating a crime, with suppression required only where 'the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process or [where] a promise or threat was made that could induce a false confession.'" People v. Jaeger, 96 AD3d 1172, 1174 (App. Div. 3rd Dept. 2012); citing People v. Colbert, 60 AD3d 1209, 1211 (App. Div. 3rd Dept. 2009), quoting People v. Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11 (NY Ct. App. 1980). While Det. Wroten's telephone conversation was ostensibly under the guise of having the Defendant come to the precinct to obtain an accident report, this tactic employed by Det. Wroten was "was not accompanied by any threats or [*6]promises that might induce a false confession and was not fundamentally unfair, the deception did not render defendant's confessions involuntary." Jaeger, 96 AD3d at 1174, citing People v. Dishaw, 30 AD3d 689, 690 (App. Div. 3rd Dept. 2006), citing People v. Serrano, 14 AD3d 874, (App. Div. 3rd Dept. 2005). To the extent that the Defense argues that Det. Wroten allegedly "promised" the Defendant that he would not be arrested in relation to this incident, that assertion is not supported by the testimony at this hearing, nor is it supported by the audio recording of the conversation between Det. Wroten and the Defendant prior to his voluntary appearance at the 17th Precinct. While Det. Wroten stated that he typically does not make arrests for leaving the scene of the accident, Det. Wroten did affirm that he could make an arrest for that offense, to which the Defendant replied, "okay." For these reasons, the statements are admissible.

The People seek to admit statements made by the Defendant at the 17th Precinct while the detectives gathered pedigree information prior to administering the Defendant his Miranda warnings and attempting to interview the Defendant regarding the instant matter. These statements were voluntarily made, were not the subject of custodial interrogation, were elicited for the purpose of gathering pedigree information, and are therefore admissible.

The People next seek to admit the Defendant's statements, "My brother got arrested for something similar but they let him out with a ticket. Is that going to happen to me?" "Can I use the bathroom?" "Can I have some water?" "When will we be heading downtown?" that were made to Det. Wroten sometime during his arrest processing and after the Defendant declined to participate in a Mirandized interview. Testimony elicited at the hearing demonstrates that these statements were not made in response to any direct questioning by the officers, nor did the officers threaten or promise the Defendant anything. Therefore, the Defendant's statements were spontaneously made and not in response to any interrogation by the officers. See, People v. Ealey, 272 AD2d 269, 270 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 2000) ("Defendant's statements to the police were not prompted by any police words or actions, but rather were voluntary, spontaneous utterances, and were therefore admissible. The police did not engage in formal questioning or its functional equivalent when, at the time of the arrest, they merely informed defendant of the accusation against him, and repeated that information in response to defendant's question at the stationhouse inquiring why he was being held.") citing People v. Ferro, 63 NY2d 316, cert denied 472 US 1007; People v. Thomas, 174 AD2d 447, lv denied 78 NY2d 975; People v. Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480.) These statements are admissible.

The People next seek to admit the Defendant's question, "What should I do if I get into this situation again?" that was made to Det. Wroten at Manhattan Central Booking and after the Defendant declined to participate in a Mirandized interview. Testimony elicited at the hearing demonstrates that this statement was not made in response to any direct questioning by the officers, nor did the officers threaten or promise the Defendant anything in order to elicit the statement. The Defendant's statement was spontaneously made and not in response to any interrogation by the officers. See, People v. Ealey, 272 AD2d 269, 270 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 2000) ("Defendant's statements to the police were not prompted by any police words or actions, but rather were voluntary, spontaneous utterances, and were therefore admissible. The police did not engage in formal questioning or its functional equivalent when, at the time of the arrest, they merely informed defendant of the accusation against him, and repeated that information in response to defendant's question at the stationhouse inquiring why he was being held.") citing People v. Ferro, 63 NY2d 316, cert denied 472 US 1007; People v. Thomas, 174 AD2d 447, lv denied 78 NY2d 975; People v. Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480.) Therefore, this statement is [*7]admissible.

The Defendant's motion to suppress is denied in its entirety. The People have satisfied their burden of demonstrating the legality of the police conduct. Probable cause existed for the Defendant's arrest. The Defendant's statements were voluntary, spontaneous, and not the result of interrogation by any law enforcement officials and are therefore admissible.