People v. Erazo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Erazo

256 A.D.2d 16, 682 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12795

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 16 (People v. Erazo) 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. Erazo, 256 A.D.2d 16, 682 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J., at suppression hearing; Bonnie Wittner, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 16, 1995, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

[17]*17Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. When the police heard radio transmissions among private security guards about the gunpoint robbery of a garment district fabric rack by male Hispanics, one of whom was wearing a purple sweater, the officers had reasonable suspicion upon which to detain defendant, who was wearing a purple sweater and accompanied by another male Hispanic, and being chased by a uniformed security guard. The circumstances that a gun was reportedly used in the robbery, and that defendant and his co-defendant were walking rapidly, while looking back over their shoulders and attempting to elude the guard, justified the officers in drawing their guns to apprehend both suspects and holding them in handcuffs until the robbery witnesses could be brought to the scene of the apprehension (People v Allen, 73 NY2d 378; People v Norman, 199 AD2d 5, lv denied 83 NY2d 808), where defendant was independently identified by the two victims within 15 minutes of the crime (People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231; People v Thomas, 247 AD2d 284). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J., at suppression hearing; Bonnie Wittner, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 16, 1995, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

[17]*17Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. When the police heard radio transmissions among private security guards about the gunpoint robbery of a garment district fabric rack by male Hispanics, one of whom was wearing a purple sweater, the officers had reasonable suspicion upon which to detain defendant, who was wearing a purple sweater and accompanied by another male Hispanic, and being chased by a uniformed security guard. The circumstances that a gun was reportedly used in the robbery, and that defendant and his co-defendant were walking rapidly, while looking back over their shoulders and attempting to elude the guard, justified the officers in drawing their guns to apprehend both suspects and holding them in handcuffs until the robbery witnesses could be brought to the scene of the apprehension (People v Allen, 73 NY2d 378; People v Norman, 199 AD2d 5, lv denied 83 NY2d 808), where defendant was independently identified by the two victims within 15 minutes of the crime (People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231; People v Thomas, 247 AD2d 284). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 16, 682 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-erazo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack