People v. Selby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Selby

82 A.D.3d 433, 917 N.Y.2d 861

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 433 (People v. Selby) 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. Selby, 82 A.D.3d 433, 917 N.Y.2d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determi[434]*434nations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). In an area known for drug activity, a trained and experienced narcotics officer saw defendant converse briefly with a man known to the officer to be a local seller of heroin and cocaine. Defendant received an unidentified object from the known drug dealer in exchange for money. These circumstances provided probable cause for defendant’s arrest (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835, 837 [1997]; People v Frierson, 61 AD3d 448 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 915 [2009]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determi[434]*434nations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). In an area known for drug activity, a trained and experienced narcotics officer saw defendant converse briefly with a man known to the officer to be a local seller of heroin and cocaine. Defendant received an unidentified object from the known drug dealer in exchange for money. These circumstances provided probable cause for defendant’s arrest (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835, 837 [1997]; People v Frierson, 61 AD3d 448 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 915 [2009]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 433, 917 N.Y.2d 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-selby-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack