People v. Maisonet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maisonet

116 A.D.2d 594, 498 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51448

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 594 (People v. Maisonet) 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. Maisonet, 116 A.D.2d 594, 498 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queen County (Farlo, J.), rendered July 12, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

There was sufficient evidence adduced at the suppression hearing to support the court’s finding of probable cause to arrest defendant, since the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer at the time of defendant’s apprehension were such as would warrant a prudent person to conclude that defendant had committed the burglary which the officer had been called to investigate (CPL 140.10 [1] [b]; see, People v Oden, 36 NY2d 382; People v Tucker, 101 AD2d 599).

We further find that the People proved defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queen County (Farlo, J.), rendered July 12, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

There was sufficient evidence adduced at the suppression hearing to support the court’s finding of probable cause to arrest defendant, since the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer at the time of defendant’s apprehension were such as would warrant a prudent person to conclude that defendant had committed the burglary which the officer had been called to investigate (CPL 140.10 [1] [b]; see, People v Oden, 36 NY2d 382; People v Tucker, 101 AD2d 599).

We further find that the People proved defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 594, 498 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maisonet-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack