People v. Berry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Berry

27 A.D.3d 201, 809 N.Y.S.2d 456

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 201 (People v. Berry) 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. Berry, 27 A.D.3d 201, 809 N.Y.S.2d 456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., at hearing; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J., at plea and sentence), rendered April 1, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

[202]*202The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The People met their initial burden of coming forward, and defendant did not meet his ultimate burden of proving the illegality of the search and seizure (see People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367 [1971]). The evidence supports the conclusion that the trained and experienced narcotics officer observed conduct that he reasonably believed to be a drug transaction (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., at hearing; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J., at plea and sentence), rendered April 1, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

[202]*202The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The People met their initial burden of coming forward, and defendant did not meet his ultimate burden of proving the illegality of the search and seizure (see People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367 [1971]). The evidence supports the conclusion that the trained and experienced narcotics officer observed conduct that he reasonably believed to be a drug transaction (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835 [1997]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 201, 809 N.Y.S.2d 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-berry-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack