People v. Polhill

• Decision Date: 28 October 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07294,21 N.E.3d 558,24 N.Y.3d 995,997 N.Y.S.2d 106 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Eugene POLHILL, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

24 N.Y.3d 995

21 N.E.3d 558

997 N.Y.S.2d 106 (Mem)

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07294

The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant

v.Eugene POLHILL, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 28, 2014.

Barket, Marion, Epstein & Kearon, LLP, Garden City (Donna Aldea of counsel), and Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Ryan, James C. Quinn and Robert J. Masters of counsel), for appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Leila Hull and Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for respondent.

New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City (Taylor Pendergrass, Christopher Dunn and Corey Stoughton of counsel), and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City (Ezekiel Edwards and Brandon Buskey of counsel), for New York Civil Liberties Union and another, amici curiae.

Barbara S. Gillers, New York University School of Law, New York City, and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York City (Eugene M. Gelernter and Amy N. Vegari of counsel), for Legal Ethics Bureau at New York University School of Law, amicus curiae.

Frank A. Sedita III, Buffalo, Morrie I. Kleinbart, Staten Island, and Donna Milling, Buffalo, for District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, amicus curiae.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

The appeal should be dismissed for failing to meet the requisites of CPL 450.90(2)(a).

The Appellate Division determined that Supreme Court should have suppressed the identification evidence because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant on the street. Whether the circumstances of a particular case rise to the level of reasonable suspicion presents a mixed question of law and fact (see People v. Howard, 74 N.Y.2d 943, 550 N.Y.S.2d 275, 549 N.E.2d 477 [1989] ). Therefore, the Appellate Division's reversal was thus not “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90[2][a] ), its order is not appealable.

Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT, RIVERA and ABDUS–SALAAM concur.

Appeal dismissed, in a memorandum.