In re Kayode A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kayode A.

236 A.D.2d 214, 653 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 803

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 4, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about March 12, 1996, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him on probation for 2 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s suppression motion was properly denied. When respondent appeared to be startled and made a sudden move[215]*215ment toward his pocket as one of the officers passed him on a narrow stairwell, the other officer properly reached into respondent’s pocket as an immediate protective measure. The record supports the conclusion that the removal of the drugs from respondent’s pocket was part of the officer’s single, reflexive action, and did not constitute an additional, unauthorized intrusion (compare, People v Diaz, 81 NY2d 106). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, 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 (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about March 12, 1996, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him on probation for 2 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s suppression motion was properly denied. When respondent appeared to be startled and made a sudden move[215]*215ment toward his pocket as one of the officers passed him on a narrow stairwell, the other officer properly reached into respondent’s pocket as an immediate protective measure. The record supports the conclusion that the removal of the drugs from respondent’s pocket was part of the officer’s single, reflexive action, and did not constitute an additional, unauthorized intrusion (compare, People v Diaz, 81 NY2d 106). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

In re Kayode A., 236 A.D.2d 214, 653 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

236 A.D.2d 214 (In re Kayode A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related