From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Simms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 12, 2006
25 A.D.3d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7566.

January 12, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered September 7, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sujatha Baliga of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Christopher Q. Davis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ. Concur.


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 NY2d 759, 761). Defendant's abandonment of a revolver was not the product of any unlawful police activity. When the police observed defendant unlawfully riding his bicycle on the sidewalk, they were entitled to detain him for the purpose of issuing a summons and to pursue him when he fled ( see e.g. People v. Delgado, 4 AD3d 310, lv denied 2 NY3d 798; People v. Bothwell, 261 AD2d 232, 234-235, lv denied 93 NY2d 1026).


Summaries of

People v. Simms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 12, 2006
25 A.D.3d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Simms

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES SIMMS, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 12, 2006

Citations

25 A.D.3d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 225
808 N.Y.S.2d 64

Citing Cases

People v. Morris

Here, the police officer's undisputed testimony established that he witnessed defendant riding a bicycle on…

People v. Habeeb

We reject defendant's contention in appeal No. 1 that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the .40…