People v. Holland

179 A.D.2d 582, 579 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 905
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 30, 1992·Published·Cited by 193 cases

Opinion

[583]*583The complainant informed a police officer that he had just been robbed and described one of the assailants as wearing a brown fur hat with earflaps down and a blue satin jacket. Immediately prior to this encounter, the officer had seen defendant, whom he knew by name, wearing the outfit described. An open complaint report naming defendant was dispersed throughout the precinct. Defendant was arrested a few months later possessing a set of brass knuckles and thirty-six vials of crack. The arrest was made by another officer who was familiar with the outstanding complaint and recognized defendant as the one sought.

The hearing court properly denied defendant’s motion for suppression of the physical evidence as there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest (People v Brnja, 50 NY2d 366, 372). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

People v. Holland, 179 A.D.2d 582, 579 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

179 A.D.2d 582 (People v. Holland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Toe (Nelson)
2025 NY Slip Op 50629(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)