People v. Sapp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sapp

241 A.D.2d 503, 661 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7380

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 503 (People v. Sapp) 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. Sapp, 241 A.D.2d 503, 661 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), rendered August 9, 1994, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Gary, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Based on the information supplied by the unidentified informants during their face-to-face conversation with the police officers and the observations of one of the officers as he approached the defendant, the police had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant possessed a gun (see, People v Sledge, 225 AD2d 711; People v Agyman, 204 AD2d 731; People v Castro, 115 AD2d 433, affd 68 NY2d 850). Consequently, the stop and frisk of the defendant was justified (see, People v Agyman, supra; People v Sattan, 200 AD2d 640; People v Castro, supra). Because the police conduct was lawful, the hearing court properly denied suppression of both the gun recovered from the defendant and the spontaneous statement subsequently made by him (see, People v Sledge, supra; People v Agyman, supra; People v Sattan, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Krausman, 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, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), rendered August 9, 1994, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Gary, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Based on the information supplied by the unidentified informants during their face-to-face conversation with the police officers and the observations of one of the officers as he approached the defendant, the police had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant possessed a gun (see, People v Sledge, 225 AD2d 711; People v Agyman, 204 AD2d 731; People v Castro, 115 AD2d 433, affd 68 NY2d 850). Consequently, the stop and frisk of the defendant was justified (see, People v Agyman, supra; People v Sattan, 200 AD2d 640; People v Castro, supra). Because the police conduct was lawful, the hearing court properly denied suppression of both the gun recovered from the defendant and the spontaneous statement subsequently made by him (see, People v Sledge, supra; People v Agyman, supra; People v Sattan, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 503, 661 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sapp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack