Opinion
November 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.).
The hearing court's findings that defendant did not match the broadcast description of a man with a gun closely enough to have justified the stop and frisk that led to recovery of the gun sought to be suppressed and that the officers' testimony that defendant reached into his coat pocket was incredible and, in any event, descriptive of only innocuous conduct that could not have given rise to reasonable suspicion, were not "manifestly erroneous", and thus should not be disturbed on appeal (People v Vasquez, 166 A.D.2d 194, 195, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 845; People v Bond, 116 A.D.2d 28, 31, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 767). Defendant's statement that the gun was for his protection, made to the police immediately after his arrest, was properly suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree ( Wong Sun v United States, 371 U.S. 471).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.