People v. Huntley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Huntley

255 A.D.2d 336, 679 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11540

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 336 (People v. Huntley) 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. Huntley, 255 A.D.2d 336, 679 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), rendered September 24, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Brill, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, statements made by him to law enforcement authorities, and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are not persuaded by the defendant’s contention that the hearing court should have suppressed physical evidence, statements made to the police, and identification testimony.

The hearing record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause. The arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime (see, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 422-423; see also, People v Jimenez, 187 AD2d-610). There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the record is devoid of sufficient evidence to es[337]*337tablish the citizen informant’s basis of knowledge (cf., People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231, 236-242). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and McGinity, 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 (Friedman, J.), rendered September 24, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Brill, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, statements made by him to law enforcement authorities, and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are not persuaded by the defendant’s contention that the hearing court should have suppressed physical evidence, statements made to the police, and identification testimony.

The hearing record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause. The arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime (see, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 422-423; see also, People v Jimenez, 187 AD2d-610). There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the record is devoid of sufficient evidence to es[337]*337tablish the citizen informant’s basis of knowledge (cf., People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231, 236-242). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 336, 679 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huntley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack