People v. Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Evans

201 A.D.2d 882, 608 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2042

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 882 (People v. Evans) 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. Evans, 201 A.D.2d 882, 608 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his suppression motion. The [883]*883police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk defendant based on a radio dispatch concerning a man with a gun that was based on a 911 call from an identified citizen informant. Defendant was the only person located near the identified intersection who matched the description of the suspect, and he was stopped shortly after the 911 call was made (see, People v Castro, 115 AD2d 433, affd 68 NY2d 850; cf., People v Carney, 58 NY2d 51, 52-53; People v La Pene, 40 NY2d 210).

Defendant’s contentions that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and that the proof is legally insufficient are lacking in merit (see generally, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

All concur except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to reverse in the following Memorandum.

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

Judgment affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his suppression motion. The [883]*883police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk defendant based on a radio dispatch concerning a man with a gun that was based on a 911 call from an identified citizen informant. Defendant was the only person located near the identified intersection who matched the description of the suspect, and he was stopped shortly after the 911 call was made (see, People v Castro, 115 AD2d 433, affd 68 NY2d 850; cf., People v Carney, 58 NY2d 51, 52-53; People v La Pene, 40 NY2d 210).

Defendant’s contentions that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and that the proof is legally insufficient are lacking in merit (see generally, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

All concur except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to reverse in the following Memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 882, 608 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-evans-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack