green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Darryl C.
Furthermore, “in this difficult area of street encounters between private citizens and law enforcement officers, [courts must not] attempt to dissect each individual act by the policemen; rather, the events must be viewed and considered as a whole, remembering that reasonableness is the key principle when undertaking the task of balancing the competing interests presented” (Chestnut, 51 NY2d at 23 ; see People v Celaj, 306 AD2d 71, 71-72 [2003], affd 1 NY3d 588 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Darryl C.
Furthermore, “in this difficult area of street encounters between private citizens and law enforcement officers, [courts must not] attempt to dissect each individual act by the policemen; rather, the events must be viewed and considered as a whole, remembering that reasonableness is the key principle when undertaking the task of balancing the competing interests presented” (Chestnut, 51 NY2d at 23 ; see People v Celaj, 306 AD2d 71, 71-72 [2003], affd 1 NY3d 588 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Allen
The majority’s review is cursory and conclusory, which is all the more unfortunate given that, as a practical matter, we act as a court of last resort in resolving the Fourth Amendment issue presented by the appeal (see People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525, 527 [2002]; People v Roque, 99 NY2d 50, 54 [2002]; see also People v Celaj, 1 NY3d 588, 589 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Shaban Celaj, Appellant
v.
Shaban Celaj, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 12, 2004.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Steven R. Kartagener, New York City, for appellant., Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Yael V. Levy of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read Concur.
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determination of reasonable suspicion made by Supreme Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division involves a mixed question of law and fact which is supported by evidence in the record. Consequently, the issue is beyond further review by this Court.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Grapfeo and Read concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.