People v. Jack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jack

260 A.D.2d 322, 688 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4357

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

DecidedApril 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 322 (People v. Jack) 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. Jack, 260 A.D.2d 322, 688 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J., at suppression hearing; Arlene Silverman, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 19, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has not preserved his claim that the information possessed by the arresting officer did not amount to probable cause because the radio transmission he received from the undercover officer did not communicate the undercover officer’s basis of knowledge that defendant had committed a crime, and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were [323]*323we to review defendant’s claim, we would find that the radio transmission that the undercover officer had located a “lost subject from the previous buy” was reasonably interpreted by the arresting officer to mean that defendant had participated in a drug transaction, at some previous unspecified time, in which the undercover officer had been personally involved, as the purchaser or otherwise (see, People v Washington, 87 NY2d 945; People v Maldonado, 86 NY2d 631). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J., at suppression hearing; Arlene Silverman, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 19, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has not preserved his claim that the information possessed by the arresting officer did not amount to probable cause because the radio transmission he received from the undercover officer did not communicate the undercover officer’s basis of knowledge that defendant had committed a crime, and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were [323]*323we to review defendant’s claim, we would find that the radio transmission that the undercover officer had located a “lost subject from the previous buy” was reasonably interpreted by the arresting officer to mean that defendant had participated in a drug transaction, at some previous unspecified time, in which the undercover officer had been personally involved, as the purchaser or otherwise (see, People v Washington, 87 NY2d 945; People v Maldonado, 86 NY2d 631). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 322, 688 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jack-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack