People v. Thomas

239 A.D.2d 246, 567 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5180
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 246 (People v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 239 A.D.2d 246, 567 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme [247]*247Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered April 25, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of resisting arrest, and sentencing him to a prison term of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to move to dismiss the resisting arrest charge on those specific grounds (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20), and because such issues may not be preserved by means of a motion to set aside the verdict (People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820). Were we to consider these claims in the interest of justice, we would find them to be without merit. Defendant was properly convicted of resisting arrest notwithstanding that he was acquitted of all other charges (People v Martin, 222 AD2d 528, lv denied 88 NY2d 850; People v Mayi, 198 AD2d 444) and was never charged with the particular offenses for which he was being arrested at the time he resisted arrest (Matter of James T., 189 AD2d 580). There was ample evidence that defendant resisted an authorized arrest. The first officer present, who was clearly in possession of probable cause, was not required to communicate anything to his fellow officers beyond a simple direction to arrest since "an arresting officer is deemed to act with probable cause when making an arrest at the direction of another law enforcement officer who has the requisite probable cause” (People v Rosario, 78 NY2d 583, 588, cert denied 502 US 1109). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Foster (Damon)
76 Misc. 3d 133(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
In re Terrance B.
40 A.D.3d 1083 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Laltoo
22 A.D.3d 230 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Mitchell
303 A.D.2d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Mohamadou
182 Misc. 2d 77 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1999)
People v. Adams
252 A.D.2d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. McKinson
249 A.D.2d 27 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D.2d 246, 567 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thomas-nyappdiv-1997.