People v. Silvestry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Silvestry

50 A.D.3d 931, 854 N.Y.S.2d 671

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

DecidedApril 15, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 931 (People v. Silvestry) 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. Silvestry, 50 A.D.3d 931, 854 N.Y.S.2d 671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), dated April 18, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime to justify a stop and frisk the defendant (see People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 447 [1992]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; People v Stevenson, 7 AD3d 820 [2004]; cf. People v Alston, 23 AD3d 487, 488 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Lifson, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), dated April 18, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime to justify a stop and frisk the defendant (see People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444, 447 [1992]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; People v Stevenson, 7 AD3d 820 [2004]; cf. People v Alston, 23 AD3d 487, 488 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Lifson, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 931, 854 N.Y.S.2d 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-silvestry-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack