In re George G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re George G.

73 A.D.3d 624, 900 N.Y.S.2d 862

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

DecidedMay 25, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 624 (In re George G.) 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 George G., 73 A.D.3d 624, 900 N.Y.S.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about June 11, 2009, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed the act of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 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 court credited the arresting officer’s testimony that at night in a high crime area, the officer saw a bulge in appellant’s waistband whose shape was consistent with the grip of a pistol. In addition, as the police approached, appellant adjusted his waistband at the site of the bulge, walked to a nearby pay phone and appeared to be positioning his body in an effort to conceal the side where the bulge was located. This combination of factors provided reasonable suspicion justifying a stop and frisk (see People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 221 [1976]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about June 11, 2009, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed the act of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 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 court credited the arresting officer’s testimony that at night in a high crime area, the officer saw a bulge in appellant’s waistband whose shape was consistent with the grip of a pistol. In addition, as the police approached, appellant adjusted his waistband at the site of the bulge, walked to a nearby pay phone and appeared to be positioning his body in an effort to conceal the side where the bulge was located. This combination of factors provided reasonable suspicion justifying a stop and frisk (see People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 221 [1976]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 624, 900 N.Y.S.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-george-g-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack