In re Dante B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dante B.

58 A.D.3d 577, 873 N.Y.S.2d 8

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 29, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 577 (In re Dante B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Dante B., 58 A.D.3d 577, 873 N.Y.S.2d 8 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on January 17, 2008, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The arresting officer heard shots fired and then saw defendant in extremely close temporal and spatial proximity to the gunfire. Defendant had a bulge in his waistband suggestive of a firearm, and was making adjustments to that area. These circumstances clearly provided reasonable suspicion, justifying a pat down of the bulge area (see People v Sanders, 235 AD2d 507 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1015 [1997]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on January 17, 2008, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The arresting officer heard shots fired and then saw defendant in extremely close temporal and spatial proximity to the gunfire. Defendant had a bulge in his waistband suggestive of a firearm, and was making adjustments to that area. These circumstances clearly provided reasonable suspicion, justifying a pat down of the bulge area (see People v Sanders, 235 AD2d 507 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1015 [1997]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 577, 873 N.Y.S.2d 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dante-b-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack