In re Michael M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michael M.

255 A.D.2d 231, 680 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12450

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 231 (In re Michael M.) 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 Michael M., 255 A.D.2d 231, 680 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about September 19, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile [232]*232delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him on probation until January 26, 1999, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There was probable cause for appellant’s arrest where an undercover officer radioed a detailed description of appellant shortly after purchasing two glassines of heroin from him, whereupon the backup team responded to the location within one minute and observed appellant, who matched the description and was the only person wearing both the distinctive hat and sweater shirt described. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about September 19, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile [232]*232delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him on probation until January 26, 1999, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There was probable cause for appellant’s arrest where an undercover officer radioed a detailed description of appellant shortly after purchasing two glassines of heroin from him, whereupon the backup team responded to the location within one minute and observed appellant, who matched the description and was the only person wearing both the distinctive hat and sweater shirt described. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 231, 680 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-m-nyappdiv-1998.