From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lazala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 28, 1991
170 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 28, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.).


Whether the accused acted as an agent of the buyer is a question of fact for the jury, and that determination, made "on broad grounds not susceptible of meticulous definition" (People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 87), will not be disturbed where defendant's connection to his co-defendant is supported by sufficient evidence. Among other things, defendant's willing acceptance of payment from the undercover officer, despite the co-defendant's concern that the area was "hot", established that defendant was not a mere agent.

We also find no merit to defendant's claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress. At the hearing, defendant argued that he was seized "on a shred," but the relative distinctiveness of his clothing and that of his co-defendant establishes that the arresting officer acted on descriptions of sufficient detail. (People v Bruce, 78 A.D.2d 169, 173.)

Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Lazala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 28, 1991
170 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Lazala

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ARQUIDIO LAZALA…

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

Date published: Feb 28, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)