People v. Gandy
| Decision Date | 10 June 2011 |
| Citation | 85 A.D.3d 1595,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04887,924 N.Y.S.2d 899 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Michael D. GANDY, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
85 A.D.3d 1595
924 N.Y.S.2d 899
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04887
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Michael D. GANDY, Defendant–Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
June 10, 2011.
[85 A.D.3d 1595] Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered December 22, 2009. The judgment[85 A.D.3d 1596] convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana.The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for defendant–appellant.Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Jaharr S. Pridgen of Counsel), for respondent.MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Supreme Court properly refused to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger. We reject defendant's contention that the police illegally stopped the vehicle. The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the vehicle was parked when the officers approached it in their patrol car and that the patrol car stopped alongside the vehicle and did not block its ability to move forward or backward ( see People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 984, 629 N.Y.S.2d 161, 652 N.E.2d 907; People v. Black, 59 A.D.3d 1050, 872 N.Y.S.2d 791, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 851, 881 N.Y.S.2d 663, 909 N.E.2d 586). Further, in view of the prior drug activity that had occurred in the house near where the vehicle was parked and citizen complaints of drug activity in that area, the officers possessed an objective, credible reason to approach the vehicle and ask the occupants “what ['s] up?” ( see People v. Ramos, 60 A.D.3d 1317, 875 N.Y.S.2d 714, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 928, 884 N.Y.S.2d 709, 912 N.E.2d 1090; People v. Robinson, 309 A.D.2d 1228, 764 N.Y.S.2d 757, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 579, 775 N.Y.S.2d 795, 807 N.E.2d 908; see generally Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d at 984–985, 629 N.Y.S.2d 161, 652 N.E.2d 907). One of the officers then exited the patrol car and approached the subject vehicle on foot, whereupon he observed a handgun on the floor in between defendant's feet. Contrary to defendant's
further contention, “the court was entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mills
... ... parked with the engine running in an area known for drug activity and, after checking the records on the license plate, the officer learned that the vehicle was registered to a parolee. He thus had articulable bases for approaching the vehicle and requesting information ( see People v. Gandy, 85 A.D.3d 1595, 924 N.Y.S.2d 899, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 859, 932 N.Y.S.2d 24, 956 N.E.2d 805; Grady, 272 A.D.2d 952, 708 N.Y.S.2d 765). The officer acquired the requisite probable cause to search defendant and the vehicle when he looked into the vehicle and observed what appeared to be baggies of ... ...
-
People v. Cintron, 145 KA 12-00166.
...the officers possessed an objective, credible reason to approach the vehicle” and ask defendant for identification (People v. Gandy, 85 A.D.3d 1595, 1596, 924 N.Y.S.2d 899, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 859, 932 N.Y.S.2d 24, 956 N.E.2d 805 ; see People v. Ramos, 60 A.D.3d 1317, 1317, 875 N.Y.S.2d 71......
- People v. Cooper
-
People v. Bush
... ... James, 19 A.D.3d 617, 618, 798 N.Y.S.2d 483,lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 829, 804 N.Y.S.2d 43, 837 N.E.2d 742). The suppression court was entitled to credit the testimony of the officers ( see People v. Gandy, 85 A.D.3d 1595, 1596, 924 N.Y.S.2d 899,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 859, 932 N.Y.S.2d 24, 956 N.E.2d 805) and, on the basis of that testimony, properly concluded that the People met their burden of establishing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance ( People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361, ... ...