People v. Becoate, 59 A.D.3d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Becoate, 59 A.D.3d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Terry (nyappdiv, 2015-01-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Terry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Within the bounds of a common-law inquiry, it was permissible for the officers, who did not draw their weapons, to approach defendant and position themselves in front and behind him, and ask him if he had *410 narcotics in his possession (see People v Becoate, 59 AD3d 345, 345 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 851 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cintron v. Calogero
NY · 2010 · confidence medium
On petitioner’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding: “The order, finding the base rent date to be December 11, 1999 (four years prior to the filing of the overcharge complaint), establishing the legal base rent as the amount paid on that date, freezing that rent until February 1, 2004, during which time rent reduction orders were extant, and directing the owner to refund overcharges collected from the base rent date inclusive of treble damages, was not arbitrary and capricious, and had a rational basis” (Matter of Cintron v Calogero, 59 AD3d 345, 346 [1st Dept 2009] [citatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Johann Becoate
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 26, 2009.
59 A.D.3d 345
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), rendered April 13, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of SVa years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. It is undisputed that, based on information that defendant may have been selling drugs, the police had at least a founded suspicion of criminality that entitled them to make a common-law inquiry. The record supports the court’s finding that the police did not exceed the proper scope of such an inquiry. It was permissible for the officers, who did not draw their weapons, to approach defendant, follow him across a street, position themselves with one officer in front of defendant and the other behind him, direct him to stop, and ask him if he had anything on him; none of this conduct elevated the encounter to a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion (see e.g. People v Stevenson, 55 AD3d 486 [2008]; People v Joseph, 38 AD3d 403, 404 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 866 [2007]; People v Grunwald, 29 AD3d 33, 38-39 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 848 [2006]). Defendant’s admission that he possessed marijuana provided probable cause for his arrest.

In view of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the People’s alternate theory that the police had reasonable suspicion justifying a seizure is properly before this Court. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Catterson, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.