Opinion
No. 47 Ind. No. 4424/17 Case No. 2020-00818
05-23-2023
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis Hill, Defendant-Appellant.
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Lawrence T. Hausman of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Rachel Bond of counsel), for respondent.
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Lawrence T. Hausman of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Rachel Bond of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Singh, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered January 21, 2020, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court for surrender proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
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 N.Y.2d 759, 761 [1977]). The court acknowledged several minor discrepancies in the officer's testimony and reasonably concluded that these were not significant under the circumstances. The court properly declined to reject it as incredible as it did not appear to be "manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" (People v Moore, 93 A.D.3d 519, 522 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 865 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
An anonymous tip reported a generically described suspect with a firearm inside a car that was specifically described by its make, model, color, and partial plate number. When the officers arrived at the specified location minutes later, they saw defendant, who met the generic description in the radio run and was the only person standing near a car that met the specific description. This justified a common-law inquiry, and when the officers approached defendant and identified themselves, defendant spontaneously asked whether somebody had called the police and reported that he had a gun. While not a direct confession of guilt, this question was highly suspicious and tended to corroborate the information from the radio run. This provided the officers with a sufficient basis to ensure their safety by asking defendant to remove his hands from his pockets, and then extracting his hands and patting the pockets when he refused to do so (see People v Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267, 270-271 [1980]; People v Hunter, 178 A.D.3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1159 [2020]; People v Perez, 142 A.D.3d 410, 415-416 [1st Dept 2016], affd 31 N.Y.3d 964 [2018]). This revealed the presence of a knife, and when the officers determined that the knife was illegal, they had probable cause to arrest defendant and search him incident to that lawful arrest.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.