People v. Waite

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Waite

223 A.D.2d 501, 637 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 745

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 501 (People v. Waite) 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. Waite, 223 A.D.2d 501, 637 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered January 19, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied. The radioed descriptions of the two perpetrators were sufficiently detailed and specific, and the temporal and spatial proximity of defendant and his companion to the time and place of the reported robbery were sufficiently close, to justify a reasonable belief that defendant and his companion were the persons described (People v White, 183 AD2d 671, lv denied 80 NY2d 911; People v Cook, 179 AD2d 572). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered January 19, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied. The radioed descriptions of the two perpetrators were sufficiently detailed and specific, and the temporal and spatial proximity of defendant and his companion to the time and place of the reported robbery were sufficiently close, to justify a reasonable belief that defendant and his companion were the persons described (People v White, 183 AD2d 671, lv denied 80 NY2d 911; People v Cook, 179 AD2d 572). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 501, 637 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-waite-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack