People v. Rowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rowe

216 A.D.2d 498, 628 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6448

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

DecidedJune 19, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 498 (People v. Rowe) 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. Rowe, 216 A.D.2d 498, 628 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered January 5, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to seize the defendant. Consequently, those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by him to the police were properly denied (see, People v Bond, 116 AD2d 28, 31; People v Milton, 115 AD2d 666; People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056,1058). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered January 5, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to seize the defendant. Consequently, those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by him to the police were properly denied (see, People v Bond, 116 AD2d 28, 31; People v Milton, 115 AD2d 666; People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056,1058). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 498, 628 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rowe-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack