People v. McKane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McKane

267 A.D.2d 253, 700 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12602

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 253 (People v. McKane) 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. McKane, 267 A.D.2d 253, 700 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered September 8, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (McDonald, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police properly stopped his car due to an apparent violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (12-a) (b) (2) (see, People v Henry, 258 AD2d 473; People v Alcide, 252 AD2d 591; People v Dougherty, 251 AD2d 344, 345; People v Edwards, 222 AD2d 603; People v McGriff, 219 AD2d 829). Thereafter, during routine investigatory questioning, the arresting officer observed, in plain view, the butt of a gun protruding from beneath the driver’s seat, justifying the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Sira, 254 AD2d 311; People v Dougherty, supra; People v Jackson, 241 AD2d 557; People v Tutt, 194 AD2d 575). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and the statements he made to law enforcement officials after he was arrested.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered September 8, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (McDonald, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police properly stopped his car due to an apparent violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (12-a) (b) (2) (see, People v Henry, 258 AD2d 473; People v Alcide, 252 AD2d 591; People v Dougherty, 251 AD2d 344, 345; People v Edwards, 222 AD2d 603; People v McGriff, 219 AD2d 829). Thereafter, during routine investigatory questioning, the arresting officer observed, in plain view, the butt of a gun protruding from beneath the driver’s seat, justifying the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Sira, 254 AD2d 311; People v Dougherty, supra; People v Jackson, 241 AD2d 557; People v Tutt, 194 AD2d 575). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and the statements he made to law enforcement officials after he was arrested.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 253, 700 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mckane-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack