People v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arroyo

223 A.D.2d 714, 637 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 656

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 714 (People v. Arroyo) 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

People v. Arroyo, 223 A.D.2d 714, 637 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered September 21, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the County Court’s determination that the search of the car in which the defendant was riding was proper (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413; People v McLaurin, 70 NY2d 779; People v Burke, 146 AD2d 706; People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673; People v Watson, 213 AD2d 996). Consequently, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered September 21, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the County Court’s determination that the search of the car in which the defendant was riding was proper (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413; People v McLaurin, 70 NY2d 779; People v Burke, 146 AD2d 706; People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673; People v Watson, 213 AD2d 996). Consequently, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 714, 637 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arroyo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack