People v. Turane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Turane

88 A.D.3d 469, 930 N.Y.2d 442

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.3d 469 (People v. Turane) 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. Turane, 88 A.D.3d 469, 930 N.Y.2d 442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The arresting officers’ recollections were sufficient to establish that a nontestifying officer observed defendant selling drugs, thereby providing probable cause for defendant’s arrest (see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 419-420 [1999]; People v Washington, 87 NY2d 945 [1996]).

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court’s [470]*470verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We also find that it was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Román, 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. The arresting officers’ recollections were sufficient to establish that a nontestifying officer observed defendant selling drugs, thereby providing probable cause for defendant’s arrest (see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 419-420 [1999]; People v Washington, 87 NY2d 945 [1996]).

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court’s [470]*470verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We also find that it was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 469, 930 N.Y.2d 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-turane-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack