People v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goodman

272 A.D.2d 626, 709 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5995

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 626 (People v. Goodman) 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. Goodman, 272 A.D.2d 626, 709 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered February 18, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property 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.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to demonstrate the existence of probable cause for his arrest is without merit. The defendant’s challenge to the failure of the People to adduce testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing from certain police officers who first detained him is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Mack, 224 AD2d 447). In any event, the hearing record demonstrates that the initial, brief detention of the defendant was predicated upon reasonable suspicion based upon a radio bulletin reporting a recent, nearby burglary, and descriptions of the alleged perpetrators. This ripened into probable cause upon the identification of the defendant by an eyewitness (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234). Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, S. Miller and Goldstein, 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 (George, J.), rendered February 18, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property 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.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to demonstrate the existence of probable cause for his arrest is without merit. The defendant’s challenge to the failure of the People to adduce testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing from certain police officers who first detained him is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Mack, 224 AD2d 447). In any event, the hearing record demonstrates that the initial, brief detention of the defendant was predicated upon reasonable suspicion based upon a radio bulletin reporting a recent, nearby burglary, and descriptions of the alleged perpetrators. This ripened into probable cause upon the identification of the defendant by an eyewitness (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234). Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 626, 709 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goodman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack