People v. Radoncic
| Decision Date | 08 May 1997 |
| Citation | 239 A.D.2d 176,657 N.Y.S.2d 627 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Radzo RADONCIC, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard Nahas, for Appellant.
James M. Montgomery, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before ELLERIN, J.P., and WALLACH, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered March 4, 1996, granting defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied.
At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, Detective Gerard Gardiner testified that, on April 1, 1995, he received a telephone call from Michelle Bonocore, who told him that her American Express card was missing and that the company had told her that, between March 23, 1995 and March 26, 1995, someone had made $5900 in unauthorized charges, including charges at two restaurants in Long Island, a gas station in Manhattan and a clothing store in the Bronx. The largest single purchase was at the Central Furniture store in the Bronx in the amount of $2850. She also told him that she had spoken to the manager of that store who told her that a man and a woman had made the purchase and that he had obtained the man's beeper number and the license plate number of a car that the two individuals had been driving.
After confirming Bonocore's information with American Express, Gardiner contacted the Carmelina Restaurant in Long Island, where one of the charges was made. A waiter at the restaurant told him that he remembered the man and woman who charged their meal and described the woman as having a tattoo on her hand. Gardiner then contacted the manager of the furniture store, who told him that a man and woman came into the store and looked at furniture and that the woman then came to the counter and purchased certain items with a credit card that bore Bonocore's name and her own photograph. She and the man, whom the manager described as a white male, 6' tall, medium build, about 200 pounds, with black straight hair and a moustache, declined to have the furniture delivered, even though the store provided free delivery. However, after they carried some of the items out of the store they realized they could not fit everything in the car and they arranged to have the rest of the furniture delivered to 235 Seaman Avenue. When the furniture was delivered, the man who made the purchase at the store accepted it downstairs and refused to let the delivery persons bring it up to the apartment.
After checking the license plate number obtained by the manager of the furniture store, who had written it down because he felt that the initial refusal by the man and woman of free delivery was suspicious, Gardiner ascertained that the car was registered to Nam Jian Li. When Gardiner called Ms. Li, she told him that the defendant, who was a friend of hers and used to be a foreman in her apartment building, had asked her to register his car in her name because he could not get a driver's license. She described the defendant as being tall with a moustache, and provided Gardiner with a partial number for the defendant's beeper, which matched the number the man had given the manager of the furniture store. Li also gave him the defendant's current address, which was the same Manhattan address as Michelle Bonocore's home address, and told him that she also knew that the defendant had a relative who lived on Seaman Avenue.
When Gardiner asked Bonocore if she recognized the name of the defendant, she said that he was an assistant superintendent of the building she lived in and that he lived in apartment 2-A. She also told him that she had not given him permission to enter her apartment but that the superintendent had the key to the lower lock of her apartment. However, he did not have a key to the upper lock. She then told Gardiner that she sometimes left the upper lock unlocked when she did her laundry and that the last time she saw her credit card, it was in her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Reed
...to lead a reasonable person to conclude that defendant” or one of his accomplices stole the cash from the victim ( People v. Radoncic, 239 A.D.2d 176, 179, 657 N.Y.S.2d 627,lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 897, 662 N.Y.S.2d 440, 685 N.E.2d 221). The evidence also establishes that the victim was shot and......
-
People v. Radoncic
...card stolen from a tenant in the building where he worked as a superintendent, as described in our prior decision (People v. Radoncic, 239 A.D.2d 176, 657 N.Y.S.2d 627, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 897, 662 N.Y.S.2d 440, 685 N.E.2d 221). There was ample evidence of defendant's participation in the ......
-
People v. Robinson
...it ... A lawful arrest does not require proof to a mathematical certainty or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Radoncic, 239 A.D.2d 176 (1st Dept.1997); see People v. Mercado, 68 N.Y.2d 874 (1986); People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417 (1985); People v. Nunez, 61 AD3d 409 (1st Dept.200......
-
People v. Snipes, 1
...lead a reasonable person to conclude that it was more probable than not that defendant was one of the perpetrators (see, People v Radoncic, 239 A.D.2d 176, 179, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 897). Since probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, ......