People v. Vermont

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vermont

96 A.D.3d 573, 946 N.Y.S.2d 475

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

DecidedJune 19, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 573 (People v. Vermont) 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. Vermont, 96 A.D.3d 573, 946 N.Y.S.2d 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered October 19, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without granting a hearing. Defendant’s allegations failed to raise a legal basis for suppression (see People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584, 587 [2006]). The information provided by the People apprised defendant that his arrest was based on an undercover drug sale. Defendant’s assertion that he “had not committed any act which justified his arrest” was insufficiently specific to address the alleged sale or raise any factual dispute requiring a hearing (see e.g. People v Bonnet, 288 AD2d 161, 162 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 751 [2002]; People v Hernandez, 283 AD2d 190 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 641 [2001]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered October 19, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without granting a hearing. Defendant’s allegations failed to raise a legal basis for suppression (see People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584, 587 [2006]). The information provided by the People apprised defendant that his arrest was based on an undercover drug sale. Defendant’s assertion that he “had not committed any act which justified his arrest” was insufficiently specific to address the alleged sale or raise any factual dispute requiring a hearing (see e.g. People v Bonnet, 288 AD2d 161, 162 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 751 [2002]; People v Hernandez, 283 AD2d 190 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 641 [2001]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 573, 946 N.Y.S.2d 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vermont-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack