People v. Fonville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fonville

266 A.D.2d 561, 698 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12217

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 561 (People v. Fonville) 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. Fonville, 266 A.D.2d 561, 698 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered June 29, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This [562]*562appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements allegedly made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials. The arresting police officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon his observations and subsequent inquiries (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181; Matter of Darnel B., 248 AD2d 464; People v Rodriguez, 159 AD2d 201; see also, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v Brown, 246 AD2d 603).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, 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, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered June 29, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This [562]*562appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements allegedly made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials. The arresting police officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon his observations and subsequent inquiries (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181; Matter of Darnel B., 248 AD2d 464; People v Rodriguez, 159 AD2d 201; see also, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v Brown, 246 AD2d 603).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 561, 698 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fonville-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack