People v. Tuck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tuck

55 A.D.3d 369, 866 N.Y.S.2d 25

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 369 (People v. Tuck) 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. Tuck, 55 A.D.3d 369, 866 N.Y.S.2d 25 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ethan Greenberg, J., at suppression hear-ing; Barbara F. Newman, J, at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 13, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The hearing evidence established that the police properly stopped defendant’s vehicle after he committed a traffic violation (see People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341 [2001]), and that the ensuing police conduct was entirely lawful.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s jury charge on the automobile presumption (Penal Law § 220.25 [1]) is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. This instruction was appropriate in light of the defense contentions (see People v Spann, 56 NY2d 469 [1982]).

Defendant’s challenge to his second felony offender adjudication is without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ethan Greenberg, J., at suppression hear-ing; Barbara F. Newman, J, at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 13, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The hearing evidence established that the police properly stopped defendant’s vehicle after he committed a traffic violation (see People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341 [2001]), and that the ensuing police conduct was entirely lawful.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s jury charge on the automobile presumption (Penal Law § 220.25 [1]) is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. This instruction was appropriate in light of the defense contentions (see People v Spann, 56 NY2d 469 [1982]).

Defendant’s challenge to his second felony offender adjudication is without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 369, 866 N.Y.S.2d 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tuck-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack