People v. Espada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Espada

186 A.D.2d 411, 588 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11329

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 411 (People v. Espada) 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. Espada, 186 A.D.2d 411, 588 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J., at suppression hearing, plea and sentence), rendered June 21, 1990, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 Vi to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that his motion to suppress should have been granted is without merit. The suppression hearing testimony of the arresting officer revealed that the officer saw the defendant remove some crack vials from a brown paper bag. The officer, who was standing inside a store two or three feet from where the defendant was standing, was not seen by the defendant.

Following defendant’s arrest, a total of 150 vials of crack were recovered from his person. A review of the hearing minutes supports the court’s finding that the testimony of the arresting officer was credible and that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Stroman, 83 AD2d 370, 372-373). Concur — Sullivan, J. R, Carro, Milonas and Kupferman, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J., at suppression hearing, plea and sentence), rendered June 21, 1990, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 Vi to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that his motion to suppress should have been granted is without merit. The suppression hearing testimony of the arresting officer revealed that the officer saw the defendant remove some crack vials from a brown paper bag. The officer, who was standing inside a store two or three feet from where the defendant was standing, was not seen by the defendant.

Following defendant’s arrest, a total of 150 vials of crack were recovered from his person. A review of the hearing minutes supports the court’s finding that the testimony of the arresting officer was credible and that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Stroman, 83 AD2d 370, 372-373). Concur — Sullivan, J. R, Carro, Milonas and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 411, 588 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-espada-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack