People v. Gelley
| Decision Date | 04 August 1997 |
| Citation | 242 A.D.2d 277,660 N.Y.S.2d 588 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 7049 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dean GELLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Kannan Sundaram, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Cafferi, and Athena D. Kehoe, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, JOY and ALTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered June 12, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third 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.
The defendant contends that the weapons recovered from the taxicab in which he was a passenger should have been suppressed because the police stop of the taxicab was a pretext. However, the record shows that the officers properly stopped the taxicab upon observing it drive through a red light (see, People v. Batista, 88 N.Y.2d 650, 649 N.Y.S.2d 356, 672 N.E.2d 581; People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393, 477 N.Y.S.2d 106, 465 N.E.2d 826; People v. McCoy, 239 A.D.2d 437, 657 N.Y.S.2d 437; People v. Ardila, 159 A.D.2d 710, 553 N.Y.S.2d 195).
Moreover, once the police observed one handgun in plain view on the floor in the rear passenger area of the taxicab, the officers were entitled not only to seize that weapon, but also to search the defendant and his companion, both of whom were carrying additional handguns on their persons (see, People v. Robinson, 74 N.Y.2d 773, 545 N.Y.S.2d 90, 543 N.E.2d 733 cert. denied 493 U.S. 966, 110 S.Ct. 411, 107 L.Ed.2d 376; see also, Matter of Marcellius H-R, 229 A.D.2d 578, 646 N.Y.S.2d 154).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dickson
...18, 1998, at 29, col. 5 [2d Dep't 1998]; People v. Jackson, 241 A.D.2d 557, 661 N.Y.S.2d 247 [2d Dep't 1997]; People v. Gelley, 242 A.D.2d 277, 660 N.Y.S.2d 588 [2d Dep't 1997] It would appear, therefore, that the adherence to the primary motivation standard of the First Department, by whic......
-
People v. Henry
...101; People v. Alcide, 252 A.D.2d 592, 676 N.Y.S.2d 216; People v. Dougherty, 251 A.D.2d 344, 673 N.Y.S.2d 742, People v. Gelley, 242 A.D.2d 277, 660 N.Y.S.2d 588; People v. Reynolds, 240 A.D.2d 517, 658 N.Y.S.2d 433; People v. McCoy, 239 A.D.2d 437, 657 N.Y.S.2d 437). Here, the stop of the......
-
People v. Citron
...A.D.2d 437, 657 N.Y.S.2d 437, citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89; see also, People v. Gelley, 242 A.D.2d 277, 660 N.Y.S.2d 588; People v. Dougherty, --- A.D.2d ----, 673 N.Y.S.2d 742; People v. Reynolds, 240 A.D.2d 517, 658 N.Y.S.2d ...
-
People v. Otero
...v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, 10-11, 439 N.Y.S.2d 877, 422 N.E.2d 537; People v Dougherty, 251 A.D.2d 344, 673 N.Y.S.2d 742; People v. Gelley, 242 A.D.2d 277, 660 N.Y.S.2d 588; People v. Reynolds, 240 A.D.2d 517, 658 N.Y.S.2d 433). Further, the defendant's contention that his constitutional rights......