People v. Soto
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 279 A.D.2d 592,719 N.Y.S.2d 603 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JOSE SOTO, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 22 January 2001 |
279 A.D.2d 592
719 N.Y.S.2d 603
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
v.
JOSE SOTO, Appellant.
Decided January 22, 2001.
Krausman, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him is without merit. It is well settled that information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest (see, People v Martin, 221 AD2d 568; People v Burton, 194 AD2d 683). Since the complainant had known the defendant for several years, the complainant's identification of the defendant as one of the shooters was sufficient to establish probable cause (see, People v Martin, supra; People v Rodriguez, 168 AD2d 520). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bell
...( see People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364; People v. Griffin, 15 A.D.3d 502, 790 N.Y.S.2d 494; People v. Soto, 279 A.D.2d 592, 719 N.Y.S.2d 603; People v. Martin, 221 A.D.2d 568, 568–569, 634 N.Y.S.2d 147; People v. Pagan, 184 A.D.2d 738, 585 N.Y.S.2d 453). Furthermore, ......
-
People v. Stallone
...279 A.D.2d 592719 N.Y.S.2d 293THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,v.JEROME STALLONE, Appellant.Decided January 22, Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally [279 A.D.......