People v. Ketcham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ketcham

251 A.D.2d 598, 673 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7469

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

DecidedJune 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 598 (People v. Ketcham) 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. Ketcham, 251 A.D.2d 598, 673 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered June 26, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third 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.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence elicited at the suppression hearing established that the police possessed probable cause to arrest him (see, People v Mims, 88 NY2d 99; People v Crespo, 207 AD2d 668). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered incident to that arrest was properly denied.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, 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 (McKay, J.), rendered June 26, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third 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.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence elicited at the suppression hearing established that the police possessed probable cause to arrest him (see, People v Mims, 88 NY2d 99; People v Crespo, 207 AD2d 668). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered incident to that arrest was properly denied.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 598, 673 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ketcham-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack