People v. Cromer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cromer

261 A.D.2d 184, 691 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5276

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

DecidedMay 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 184 (People v. Cromer) 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. Cromer, 261 A.D.2d 184, 691 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J., at suppression hearing; William Wetzel, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 12, 1995, convicting defendant of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The gunpoint stop and frisk, which formed the predicate for the subsequent police actions, was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant and his companions had, minutes earlier, committed a robbery. The joint description of the perpetrators was sufficiently specific given that defendant and his companions were immediately found in the building into which the witnesses had seen the perpetrators flee (see, People v Brown, 254 AD2d 88, lv denied 92 NY2d 980; People v Jones, 238 AD2d 153, lv denied 90 NY2d 906). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J., at suppression hearing; William Wetzel, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 12, 1995, convicting defendant of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The gunpoint stop and frisk, which formed the predicate for the subsequent police actions, was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant and his companions had, minutes earlier, committed a robbery. The joint description of the perpetrators was sufficiently specific given that defendant and his companions were immediately found in the building into which the witnesses had seen the perpetrators flee (see, People v Brown, 254 AD2d 88, lv denied 92 NY2d 980; People v Jones, 238 AD2d 153, lv denied 90 NY2d 906). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 184, 691 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cromer-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack