From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 2002
291 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1998-07484

Submitted December 13, 2001.

February 6, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered July 27, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Robinson, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Peters of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Jill Gross-Marks of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's motion to suppress several bricks of cocaine found by the police in two suitcases in an apartment from which he attempted to flee was properly denied. While the anonymous telephone call received by the police concerning the drugs and their location in the apartment, standing alone, did not carry sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant intrusive police action (see, Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266; People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267), the unresponsive and peculiar answers that the defendant gave from behind the closed door of the apartment when the police knocked at the door, combined with his attempt to flee the apartment by going out the second floor window and jumping off the roof of a shed, constituted objective articulable facts which provided the police with reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot (see, People v. Benjamin, supra; People v. Wider, 172 A.D.2d 573; People v. Taylor, 76 A.D.2d 892). Therefore, the defendant's detention by a police officer, after the officer's observation of these articulable facts, was proper.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 2002
291 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Singh

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. TERRY SINGH, appellant

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

Date published: Feb 6, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 156

Citing Cases

People v. Bowden

This information justified a stop and frisk under People v. De Bour.There are certainly similarities between…

People v. Bowden

This information justified a stop and frisk under People v De Bour. There are certainly similarities between…