People v. Ocasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ocasio

216 A.D.2d 157, 628 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6548

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

DecidedJune 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 157 (People v. Ocasio) 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. Ocasio, 216 A.D.2d 157, 628 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stephen Lloyd Barrett, J.), rendered July 15,1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Summary denial of the Dunaway/ Wade branch of defendant’s suppression motion was proper since the undercover police officer’s confirmatory identification in this "buy-and-bust” operation preceded defendant’s arrest, and hence was not suppressible as the fruit of an illegal arrest (CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; People v Rivera, 168 AD2d 305, lv denied 77 NY2d 910; see also, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 422).

In addition, since the undercover police officer testified at the Hinton hearing that he was still active in that capacity in the specific area where defendant was arrested, the courtroom was properly closed during his testimony (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 443). The issue whether defendant’s wife should have been exempted from the closure order has not been preserved as it was not raised until after the Hinton hearing (see, People v Bouche, 208 AD2d 445, lv denied 84 NY2d 1009). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stephen Lloyd Barrett, J.), rendered July 15,1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Summary denial of the Dunaway/ Wade branch of defendant’s suppression motion was proper since the undercover police officer’s confirmatory identification in this "buy-and-bust” operation preceded defendant’s arrest, and hence was not suppressible as the fruit of an illegal arrest (CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; People v Rivera, 168 AD2d 305, lv denied 77 NY2d 910; see also, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 422).

In addition, since the undercover police officer testified at the Hinton hearing that he was still active in that capacity in the specific area where defendant was arrested, the courtroom was properly closed during his testimony (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 443). The issue whether defendant’s wife should have been exempted from the closure order has not been preserved as it was not raised until after the Hinton hearing (see, People v Bouche, 208 AD2d 445, lv denied 84 NY2d 1009). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 157, 628 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ocasio-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack