People v. Fowler
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 03905 (People v. Fowler) 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.
Opinion
| People v Fowler |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 03905 |
| Decided on June 27, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on June 27, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: BANNISTER, J.P., MONTOUR, SMITH, NOWAK, AND HANNAH, JJ.
403 KA 18-01941
v
NERO FOWLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ADAM AMIRAULT, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
TODD C. CARVILLE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (MICHAEL A. LABELLA, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered July 24, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). We affirm.
Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly denied his request for a Darden hearing. Where, as here, "information is received from a confidential informant but . . . police officer[s] thereafter make[ ] [their] own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary" (People v Dudden, 138 AD3d 1452, 1453 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1162 [2017]; see People v Crooks, 27 NY3d 609, 614-615 [2016]; People v Farrow, 98 NY2d 629, 631 [2002]).
Defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are not preserved for our review because defendant made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Piasta, 207 AD3d 1054, 1058 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1190 [2022]).
Entered: June 27, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 03905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fowler-nyappdiv-2025.