People v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riley

115 A.D.2d 670, 496 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55126

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 670 (People v. Riley) 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. Riley, 115 A.D.2d 670, 496 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J), rendered June 3, 1982, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

The testimony of the arresting officer at the suppression hearing as to the circumstances surrounding the arrest and seizure of the drugs from defendant was not incredible as a matter of law. Based upon that testimony, which was credited by the court, the motion to suppress was properly denied. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J), rendered June 3, 1982, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

The testimony of the arresting officer at the suppression hearing as to the circumstances surrounding the arrest and seizure of the drugs from defendant was not incredible as a matter of law. Based upon that testimony, which was credited by the court, the motion to suppress was properly denied. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 670, 496 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-riley-nyappdiv-1985.