People v. Drake, 2021 NY Slip Op 04088 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Drake, 2021 NY Slip Op 04088 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Fabien (nyappdiv, 2022-06-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fabien
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
It is undisputed that the odor of marijuana was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the search under the law in effect at the time ( see People v McCray , 195 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1028 [2021]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pastrana
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Pursuant to the automobile exception, "[s]tate actors may search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there" so long as there is "a nexus between the arrest and the probable cause to search" ( People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; People v McCray , 195 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1028 [2021]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pastrana
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Pursuant to the automobile exception, "[s]tate actors may search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there" so long as there is "a nexus between the arrest and the probable cause to search" ( People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; People v McCray , 195 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1028 [2021]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Diaz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
The court correctly applied the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 [1989]; People v McCray , 195 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1028 [2021]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Kuforiji
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
Under the automobile exception, police may search a vehicle without a warrant when they have "probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there" so long as there is "a nexus between the arrest and the probable cause to search" ( People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; see People v McCray , 195 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1028 [2021]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Kuforiji
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
Under the automobile exception, police may search a vehicle without a warrant when they have "probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there" so long as there is "a nexus between the arrest and the probable cause to search" ( People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; see People v McCray , 195 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1028 [2021]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
People
v.
Drake
Ind No. 1247/16 Appeal No. 14113 Case No. 2018-3103.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 24, 2021.
2021 NY Slip Op 04088
Published
People v Drake (2021 NY Slip Op 04088)
People v Drake
2021 NY Slip Op 04088
Decided on June 24, 2021
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: June 24, 2021
Before: Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, González, JJ.

Ind No. 1247/16 Appeal No. 14113 Case No. 2018-3103

[*1]The People of The State of New York, Respondent,

v

Dennell Drake, Defendant-Appellant.




Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Heidi Bota of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Shane Magnetti of counsel), for respondent.



An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Villegas, J. at plea; William Mogulescu, J. at sentencing), rendered September 20, 2016,

Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive,

It is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: June 24, 2021

Counsel for appellant is referred to

§ 606.5, Rules of the Appellate Division,

First Department.