From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Mendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 2007
44 A.D.3d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 1579.

October 2, 2007.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J., at suppression hearing; Bruce Allen, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 15, 2005, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Frances Gallagher of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Paula-Rose Stark of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.


The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police properly approached defendant and his van with weapons drawn, based upon statements by an identified informant whose reliability and basis of knowledge were, at least, sufficient to meet the standard of reasonable suspicion ( see People v Herold, 282 AD2d 1, 4-5, lv denied 97 NY2d 682). The informant made his statement while under arrest for possession of heroin. That circumstance enhanced the reliability of his statements, since "it . . . can also be inferred that an individual in the informant's position would not lightly mislead the police and thereby exacerbate his predicament" ( People v Comforto, 62 NY2d 725, 727). Furthermore, his information was based on his personal dealings with defendant, and since he was admitting to a series of narcotics purchases he was making a declaration against penal interest ( see People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 403-404). Moreover, the informant's prediction of defendant's behavior was substantially accurate. After lawfully approaching, the police recovered a firearm from defendant's van as a result of a plain view observation, made from a vantage point that resulted from their exercise of reasonable safety precautions ( see People v Barrett, 14 AD3d 369; People v Gonzalez, 298 AD2d 133, lv denied 99 NY2d 558).


Summaries of

State v. Mendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 2007
44 A.D.3d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Mendez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANGEL MENDEZ, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 2, 2007

Citations

44 A.D.3d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7311
843 N.Y.S.2d 217

Citing Cases

People v. Edwards

The police officer interviewed the informant for 10 to 15 minutes, during which time the officer had an…