People v. Warfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Warfield

55 A.D.3d 406, 864 N.Y.S.2d 916, 56 A.D.2d 268, 866 N.Y.S.2d 665

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 406 (People v. Warfield) 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. Warfield, 55 A.D.3d 406, 864 N.Y.S.2d 916, 56 A.D.2d 268, 866 N.Y.S.2d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered October 9, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 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]). We do not find the police testimony at the suppression hearing to be implausible or materially inconsistent with the testimony before the grand jury. Defendant’s behavior provided a sufficient basis for the protective actions taken by the officers (see People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Williams, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered October 9, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 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]). We do not find the police testimony at the suppression hearing to be implausible or materially inconsistent with the testimony before the grand jury. Defendant’s behavior provided a sufficient basis for the protective actions taken by the officers (see People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Williams, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 406, 864 N.Y.S.2d 916, 56 A.D.2d 268, 866 N.Y.S.2d 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-warfield-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack