In re Larry R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Larry R.

222 A.D.2d 220, 634 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12535

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 220 (In re Larry R.) 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 Larry R., 222 A.D.2d 220, 634 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about October 25, 1994, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him for up to one year in a moderately structured environment, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The hearing court, whose factual findings are entitled to great deference, properly denied respondent’s motion to suppress the narcotics found in his possession upon proof that the arresting officer observed respondent from a distance of about 15 feet holding yellow-topped vials in his hand while talking to another individual, and was in a position to recognize these vials as crack containers (see, People v Caldwell, 197 AD2d 390, lv denied 82 NY2d 848). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, 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, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about October 25, 1994, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him for up to one year in a moderately structured environment, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The hearing court, whose factual findings are entitled to great deference, properly denied respondent’s motion to suppress the narcotics found in his possession upon proof that the arresting officer observed respondent from a distance of about 15 feet holding yellow-topped vials in his hand while talking to another individual, and was in a position to recognize these vials as crack containers (see, People v Caldwell, 197 AD2d 390, lv denied 82 NY2d 848). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 220, 634 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-larry-r-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack