People v. Conway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Conway

280 A.D.2d 313, 721 N.Y.S.2d 24, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1383

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 313 (People v. Conway) 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. Conway, 280 A.D.2d 313, 721 N.Y.S.2d 24, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered August 13, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There was ample probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass. The officer, who knew that the subject apartment had recently been sealed by narcotics officers, responded to a radio call that drugs were being sold out of it. After observing that the apartment door lock was broken, that the door, which lacked a doorknob, could not be secured, and that an extension cord was running to a hallway socket, the officer properly arrested defendant when he emerged from the apartment (see, People v Mercado, 265 AD2d 177, lv denied 94 NY2d 826). Probable cause did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of criminal trespass (People v Tinort, 272 AD2d 206, lv denied 95 NY2d 872). Under the circumstances, defendant’s acquittal of the trespass charge does not undermine [314]*314the court’s finding of probable cause. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered August 13, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There was ample probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass. The officer, who knew that the subject apartment had recently been sealed by narcotics officers, responded to a radio call that drugs were being sold out of it. After observing that the apartment door lock was broken, that the door, which lacked a doorknob, could not be secured, and that an extension cord was running to a hallway socket, the officer properly arrested defendant when he emerged from the apartment (see, People v Mercado, 265 AD2d 177, lv denied 94 NY2d 826). Probable cause did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of criminal trespass (People v Tinort, 272 AD2d 206, lv denied 95 NY2d 872). Under the circumstances, defendant’s acquittal of the trespass charge does not undermine [314]*314the court’s finding of probable cause. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 313, 721 N.Y.S.2d 24, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-conway-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack