From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Sherrod H.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 23, 2014
116 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-04-23

In the Matter of SHERROD H. (Anonymous), appellant.

Scott A. Rosenberg, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Adira J. Hulkower of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Ingrid Gustalen of counsel; Benjamin Levin on the brief), for respondent.


Scott A. Rosenberg, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Adira J. Hulkower of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Ingrid Gustalen of counsel; Benjamin Levin on the brief), for respondent.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Sherrod H. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (McElrath, J.), dated January 15, 2013, which, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated November 7, 2012, made upon his admission, finding that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of Sherrod H.'s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the testimony of the police officers who testified at the suppression hearing was not incredible as a matter of law, as it was not “ ‘manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory’ ” ( People v. Mitchell, 68 A.D.3d 1019, 1019, 892 N.Y.S.2d 442, quoting People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500). The evidence established that, after the appellant dropped a clear plastic bag containing seven clear ziplock bags containing what appeared to be marijuana, he fled the scene on foot, which at least justified a stop of the appellant based upon reasonable suspicion that he was committing a crime ( see People v. Pines, 99 N.Y.2d 525, 527, 752 N.Y.S.2d 266, 782 N.E.2d 62). When a police sergeant apprehended the appellant by grabbing him by the front of his vest, the police sergeant felt an “L” shaped object in the vest, which justified a frisk of the appellant for weapons ( see People v. Rodriguez, 177 A.D.2d 521, 575 N.Y.S.2d 911).

Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly denied those branches of the appellant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence. RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Sherrod H.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 23, 2014
116 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

In re Sherrod H.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SHERROD H. (Anonymous), appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 23, 2014

Citations

116 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
116 A.D.3d 954
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2777

Citing Cases

People v. Blake

The hearing court's credibility determinations are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be…

People v. Blake

There is no basis in the record to disturb the court's determination that the officers' testimony was…