People v. Montero, 15657, 4921/11
| Decision Date | 09 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | 15657, 4921/11 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06013,130 A.D.3d 474,13 N.Y.S.3d 404 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pedro MONTERO, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
130 A.D.3d 474
13 N.Y.S.3d 404
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06013
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Pedro MONTERO, Defendant–Appellant.
15657, 4921/11
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
July 9, 2015.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Andrew C. Fine of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, CLARK, JJ.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered May 9, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Police observed defendant, who was standing in the lobby of a Housing Authority building, open the door for another man
who had been standing around outside, apparently waiting for access. The officers were aware that the building was normally entered either by means of a key or by being buzzed in by someone in an apartment. Defendant and the other man remained in the lobby for several minutes without going towards the elevators. Their behavior provided the police with an objective, credible reason to make a minimally intrusive inquiry into whether they lived there (see People v. Wighfall, 55 A.D.3d 347, 866 N.Y.S.2d 625 [1st Dept.2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 931, 874 N.Y.S.2d 16, 902 N.E.2d 450 [2009] ). Although the behavior of the two men may have had innocent explanations, a request for information “need be supported only by an objective credible reason not necessarily indicative of criminality” (People v. Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 185, 581 N.Y.S.2d 619, 590 N.E.2d 204 [1992] )....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hill
...explanation was credible, and this does not rise to a level three forcible detention or seizure (see e.g. People v. Montero, 130 A.D.3d 474, 13 N.Y.S.3d 404 [1st Dept.2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 970, 18 N.Y.S.3d 606, 40 N.E.3d 584 [2015] [the officer's request that the defendant remain in t......
-
People v. Hutthinson
...v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562 ; People v. Karagoz, 143 A.D.3d 912, 39 N.Y.S.3d 217 ; People v. Montero, 130 A.D.3d 474, 13 N.Y.S.3d 404 ; People v. Sims, 106 A.D.3d 1473, 964 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; People v. Wannamaker, 93 A.D.3d 426, 939 N.Y.S.2d 411 ). However, we ag......
-
N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.
...until the close of evidence at trial, whether or not punitive damages will be sought. Even plaintiffs, in their proposed modification 13 N.Y.S.3d 404of Section XVII, recognized the need for pre-trial resolution of the punitive damages issue. We therefore modify to delete the second sentence......
- Duckett v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp.