People v. Fitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fitz

187 A.D.2d 449, 589 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12498

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 449 (People v. Fitz) 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. Fitz, 187 A.D.2d 449, 589 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered September 28, 1990, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence seized from the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While on routine patrol on Linwood Street in Brooklyn, three police officers noticed the defendant standing alone in a vacant lot next to an abandoned building, with his back to them. The officers approached the defendant and, from a distance of approximately 20 to 30 feet, one of the officers asked the defendant what he was doing. When the defendant turned and faced the officers, he threw away a brown paper bag. One of the officers observed several vials of crack cocaine fall out of the bag, and he subsequently recovered a total of 16 vials of crack cocaine. The defendant was arrested and convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that the court improperly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The conduct of the police officers was not improper. The officers had an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant and request information, and the question was reasonable (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210; see also, People v Diaz, 80 NY2d 950). In any event, the defendant abandoned the bag containing the vials of crack cocaine after seeing the officers (see, People v Diaz, 180 AD2d 415).

The defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered September 28, 1990, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence seized from the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While on routine patrol on Linwood Street in Brooklyn, three police officers noticed the defendant standing alone in a vacant lot next to an abandoned building, with his back to them. The officers approached the defendant and, from a distance of approximately 20 to 30 feet, one of the officers asked the defendant what he was doing. When the defendant turned and faced the officers, he threw away a brown paper bag. One of the officers observed several vials of crack cocaine fall out of the bag, and he subsequently recovered a total of 16 vials of crack cocaine. The defendant was arrested and convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that the court improperly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The conduct of the police officers was not improper. The officers had an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant and request information, and the question was reasonable (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210; see also, People v Diaz, 80 NY2d 950). In any event, the defendant abandoned the bag containing the vials of crack cocaine after seeing the officers (see, People v Diaz, 180 AD2d 415).

The defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 449, 589 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fitz-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack