People v. Frank
| Decision Date | 29 May 1990 |
| Citation | 161 A.D.2d 794,556 N.Y.S.2d 368 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Floyd FRANK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Schwartz and DiBlasi, Forest Hills (Barry A. Schwartz, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen and Peter R. Chatzinoff, of counsel; Patricia E. Sacks, on the brief), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, SULLIVAN and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.), rendered January 5, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court did not erroneously deny his motion to suppress the cocaine recovered by the two arresting officers. The defendant's car was lawfully stopped after the officers observed it pass through an intersection without obeying the stop sign controlling traffic (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172[a]; see, People v. Barnes, 144 A.D.2d 371, 533 N.Y.S.2d 923; People v. Dennis, 144 A.D.2d 381, 533 N.Y.S.2d 953; People v. Veryzer, 139 A.D.2d 609, 527 N.Y.S.2d 101). During the brief roadside detention that followed (see, People v. Mathis, 136 A.D.2d 746, 523 N.Y.S.2d 915), the officers requested the defendant's license and registration, and inquired about the contents of a small handbag into which they had seen the defendant place a rolled up wad of paper. In response to this inquiry the defendant suddenly fled into nearby Prospect Park, leaving his idling automobile behind. During the brief pursuit that followed, the defendant threw away the ball of paper, which was found to contain two plastic bags containing a total of nearly three ounces of cocaine. Clearly, the defendant's sudden flight, leaving his automobile behind prior to being issued a traffic summons, justified the officers' pursuit (see, People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 506 N.Y.S.2d 320, 497 N.E.2d 687). The cocaine recovered was properly ruled admissible as abandoned property (see, People v. Ginosyan, 148 A.D.2d 630, 539 N.Y.S.2d 92).
Furthermore, we find that the defendant was properly tried in absentia. After being present at the suppression hearing, the defendant thereafter appeared in court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Clark
..."leaving his automobile behind prior to being issued a traffic summons, [further] justified the officers’ pursuit" ( People v. Frank , 161 A.D.2d 794, 795, 556 N.Y.S.2d 368 [2d Dept. 1990], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 939, 563 N.Y.S.2d 69, 564 N.E.2d 679 [1990] ), and " ‘the recovery of the gun dis......
-
People v. Dugan
...any subsequent derivative evidence (see, People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 418-419, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39; People v. Frank, 161 A.D.2d 794, 795, 556 N.Y.S.2d 368, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 939, 563 N.Y.S.2d 69, 564 N.E.2d The majority of defendant's remaining arguments, including his pres......
-
People v. Foster
...62 N.Y.2d 393, 396, 477 N.Y.S.2d 106, 465 N.E.2d 826; People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39; People v. Frank, 161 A.D.2d 794, 556 N.Y.S.2d 368; cf., Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1123). Thereafter, the officers were entitled to ask the driver for his license and registr......
-
Frank v. Johnson, 1331
...Degree, in violation of N.Y.Penal Law § 220.18 (McKinney 1989). After exhausting his available state remedies, see People v. Frank, 161 A.D.2d 794, 556 N.Y.S.2d 368 (2d Dep't), appeal denied mem., People v. Frank, 76 N.Y.2d 939, 563 N.Y.S.2d 69, 564 N.E.2d 679 (1990), Frank filed a pro se h......