People v. Oleva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oleva

254 A.D.2d 69, 678 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10153

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 69 (People v. Oleva) 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. Oleva, 254 A.D.2d 69, 678 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered January 4, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. A fair reading of the officer’s testimony, as a whole, supports the court’s determination that the police had sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop defendant under the attendant circumstances. Defendant matched both the sufficiently specific description [70]*70given by an anonymous caller and the description of a robbery suspect whom the officers were staking out (see, People v Grant, 184 AD2d 242, lv denied 80 NY2d 904). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered January 4, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. A fair reading of the officer’s testimony, as a whole, supports the court’s determination that the police had sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop defendant under the attendant circumstances. Defendant matched both the sufficiently specific description [70]*70given by an anonymous caller and the description of a robbery suspect whom the officers were staking out (see, People v Grant, 184 AD2d 242, lv denied 80 NY2d 904). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 69, 678 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oleva-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack