People v. Fabelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fabelo

277 A.D.2d 130, 717 N.Y.S.2d 98, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12421

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 130 (People v. Fabelo) 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. Fabelo, 277 A.D.2d 130, 717 N.Y.S.2d 98, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered February 19, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The court correctly found that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the grate on the street into which the police had seen him drop narcotics. Defendant lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in the grate, in that it was visible and [131]*131accessible to the public and defendant had no right to exclude others (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 112-113).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rubin, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered February 19, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The court correctly found that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the grate on the street into which the police had seen him drop narcotics. Defendant lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in the grate, in that it was visible and [131]*131accessible to the public and defendant had no right to exclude others (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 112-113).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rubin, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 130, 717 N.Y.S.2d 98, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fabelo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack