From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Castro

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 14, 1988
519 N.E.2d 614 (N.Y. 1988)

Opinion

Argued January 7, 1988

Decided January 14, 1988

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Carol Berkman, J.

Henry Winestine and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Beth J. Thomas and Amyjane Rettew of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

"Whether a police officer has the requisite reasonable suspicion to believe a defendant had been, is then or is about to be engaged in conduct in violation of the law is generally a mixed question of law and fact which can rarely be resolved as a matter of law" (People v Chilton, 69 N.Y.2d 928, 929; People v Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 477-478). Inasmuch as there is evidence in the record to support the hearing court's finding, undisturbed by the Appellate Division, that there was a sufficient predicate for the officer's interference with defendant as he attempted to walk away from the taxi, our review process is at an end (People v Jones, 69 N.Y.2d 853, 855).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Castro

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 14, 1988
519 N.E.2d 614 (N.Y. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Castro

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN CASTRO, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 14, 1988

Citations

519 N.E.2d 614 (N.Y. 1988)
519 N.E.2d 614
524 N.Y.S.2d 668

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

The circumstances of defendant's encounter with police do not support the majority's position that the…

People v. Ramon T.

In this case, the police observed neither a violation of the traffic laws nor any signs of distress on the…