People v. Terry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Terry

15 A.D.3d 222, 791 N.Y.S.2d 519, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1283

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 222 (People v. Terry) 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. Terry, 15 A.D.3d 222, 791 N.Y.S.2d 519, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[223]*223Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J., at hearing; Daniel E FitzGerald, J., at plea and sentence), rendered May 30, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The radioed description of the drug seller, which featured a detailed clothing description, was sufficiently specific, given the very close spatial and temporal factors, to provide probable cause for the arrest (see e.g. People v Rampersant, 272 AD2d 202 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 870 [2000]; People v Ward, 182 AD2d 573 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 849 [1993]; People v Moczo, 174 AD2d 365 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1013 [1991]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[223]*223Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J., at hearing; Daniel E FitzGerald, J., at plea and sentence), rendered May 30, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The radioed description of the drug seller, which featured a detailed clothing description, was sufficiently specific, given the very close spatial and temporal factors, to provide probable cause for the arrest (see e.g. People v Rampersant, 272 AD2d 202 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 870 [2000]; People v Ward, 182 AD2d 573 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 849 [1993]; People v Moczo, 174 AD2d 365 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1013 [1991]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 222, 791 N.Y.S.2d 519, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-terry-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack