People v. Pope

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pope

208 A.D.2d 356, 616 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9244

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 356 (People v. Pope) 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. Pope, 208 A.D.2d 356, 616 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered August 28, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained after he was stopped by the officer was properly denied. An off-duty officer witnessed the crime and identified the defendant, who was still in close proximity to the scene of the act. Probable cause existed since the identified off-duty officer, who gave the arresting officer the details of the crime and identified defendant, was an eyewitness to the attempted burglary, and thus had the requisite reliable basis of knowledge (see, People v Hetrick, 80 NY2d 344, 348; People v Lopez, 160 AD2d 167, 168).

Defendant’s remaining challenges are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claims, we would find them to be meritless. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered August 28, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained after he was stopped by the officer was properly denied. An off-duty officer witnessed the crime and identified the defendant, who was still in close proximity to the scene of the act. Probable cause existed since the identified off-duty officer, who gave the arresting officer the details of the crime and identified defendant, was an eyewitness to the attempted burglary, and thus had the requisite reliable basis of knowledge (see, People v Hetrick, 80 NY2d 344, 348; People v Lopez, 160 AD2d 167, 168).

Defendant’s remaining challenges are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claims, we would find them to be meritless. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 356, 616 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pope-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack