People v. De La Rosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De La Rosa

104 A.D.3d 571, 961 N.Y.S.2d 162

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 571 (People v. De La Rosa) 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. De La Rosa, 104 A.D.3d 571, 961 N.Y.S.2d 162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J., at suppression hearing; Daniel E FitzGerald, J., at plea; Charles Solomon, J., at sentencing), rendered September 22, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The court, which had the unique opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, credited testimony that the police made a lawful traffic stop, smelled marijuana through the car window, and saw cocaine in open view. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J., at suppression hearing; Daniel E FitzGerald, J., at plea; Charles Solomon, J., at sentencing), rendered September 22, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The court, which had the unique opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, credited testimony that the police made a lawful traffic stop, smelled marijuana through the car window, and saw cocaine in open view. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 571, 961 N.Y.S.2d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-la-rosa-nyappdiv-2013.