People v. Valdes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valdes

244 A.D.2d 268, 664 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 268 (People v. Valdes) 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. Valdes, 244 A.D.2d 268, 664 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered March 22, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The experienced officer’s observation of defendant engaging in three exchanges of “shiny objects”, which the officer believed to be vials of crack, for money, in a drug-prone area, provided ample [269]*269probable cause for defendant’s arrest (see, People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594; People v Jones, 219 AD2d 417, affd 90 NY2d 835). We see no reason to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered March 22, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The experienced officer’s observation of defendant engaging in three exchanges of “shiny objects”, which the officer believed to be vials of crack, for money, in a drug-prone area, provided ample [269]*269probable cause for defendant’s arrest (see, People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594; People v Jones, 219 AD2d 417, affd 90 NY2d 835). We see no reason to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 268, 664 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valdes-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack