People v. Reyna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reyna

37 A.D.3d 312, 830 N.Y.S.2d 126

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 312 (People v. Reyna) 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. Reyna, 37 A.D.3d 312, 830 N.Y.S.2d 126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered March 28, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record supports the court’s determination that Sergeant Hernandez had probable cause to arrest defendant when he saw him place nine glassine envelopes of heroin on a shelf in a store (see e.g. People v Alvarez, 100 NY2d 549 [2003]). Accordingly, the failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence of the description previously transmitted to Sergeant Hernandez is of no legal moment. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered March 28, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record supports the court’s determination that Sergeant Hernandez had probable cause to arrest defendant when he saw him place nine glassine envelopes of heroin on a shelf in a store (see e.g. People v Alvarez, 100 NY2d 549 [2003]). Accordingly, the failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence of the description previously transmitted to Sergeant Hernandez is of no legal moment. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 312, 830 N.Y.S.2d 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reyna-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack