People v. Gamble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gamble

267 A.D.2d 400, 700 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13115

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 400 (People v. Gamble) 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. Gamble, 267 A.D.2d 400, 700 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered February 6, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (O’Dwyer, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the gun the police found after he was arrested should have been suppressed due to Police Officer Gerard Bowden’s inconsistent and incredible testimony at the suppression hearing. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, is without merit. There was credible testimony at the suppression hearing that Officer Bowden, while on routine patrol, observed a gun protruding from the defendant’s waistband. Another police officer saw the defendant “grab his waist” and flee on his bicycle. The police officers’ observation of the gun provided probable cause to arrest the defendant (see generally, People v White, 173 AD2d 231; People v Rivera, 121 AD2d 166). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Thompson, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Schmidt, 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 (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered February 6, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (O’Dwyer, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the gun the police found after he was arrested should have been suppressed due to Police Officer Gerard Bowden’s inconsistent and incredible testimony at the suppression hearing. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, is without merit. There was credible testimony at the suppression hearing that Officer Bowden, while on routine patrol, observed a gun protruding from the defendant’s waistband. Another police officer saw the defendant “grab his waist” and flee on his bicycle. The police officers’ observation of the gun provided probable cause to arrest the defendant (see generally, People v White, 173 AD2d 231; People v Rivera, 121 AD2d 166). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Thompson, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 400, 700 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gamble-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack