In re Jasmine De L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jasmine De L.

276 A.D.2d 318, 714 N.Y.S.2d 456, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10547

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 12, 2000·Published

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered April 12, 1999, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed her in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There [319] is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. Given the very close temporal and spatial proximity of the apprehension to the sale and the absence of any other persons, the joint description of appellant and another participant in the sale was sufficiently specific to provide the arresting officer with, at least, reasonable suspicion upon which to detain the two suspects pending a confirmatory identification by the undercover officer (see, People v Morales, 246 AD2d 396, lv denied 91 NY2d 943). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, 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 Bednar, J.), entered April 12, 1999, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed her in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There [319] is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. Given the very close temporal and spatial proximity of the apprehension to the sale and the absence of any other persons, the joint description of appellant and another participant in the sale was sufficiently specific to provide the arresting officer with, at least, reasonable suspicion upon which to detain the two suspects pending a confirmatory identification by the undercover officer (see, People v Morales, 246 AD2d 396, lv denied 91 NY2d 943). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

In re Jasmine De L., 276 A.D.2d 318, 714 N.Y.S.2d 456, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 318 (In re Jasmine De L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related