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

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 214 (In re Kayode A.) 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 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 214, 653 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kayode-a-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack