People v. Otero, 256 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Otero, 256 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Allain v. Oriola-Allain (nyappdiv, 2014-10-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Allain v. Oriola-Allain
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Furthermore, this Court, like the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division in each of the other judicial departments, has dismissed appeals by fugitives in criminal proceedings “on the comparable ground that ‘the appellant is not presently available to obey the mandate of the Court in the event of an affirmance’ ” (Matter of Skiff-Murray v Murray, 305 AD2d at 753 , quoting People v Sullivan, 28 NY2d 900, 901 [1971]; see People v Howe, 256 AD2d 476 [1998]; People v Jones, 245 AD2d 1144, 1145 [1997]; People v Mota, 210 AD2d 435 [1994]; People v Smith, 115 AD2d 625 [1985]; People v Dav…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Luis Otero
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 16, 1998.
256 A.D.2d 476
Published

—Appeal by the defen[*477] dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered February 6, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Flug, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun found in the radio area of his dashboard and the evidence recovered from him after his arrest. Although the officers suspected that the car was stolen, their approach to the vehicle, validly based upon a personal observation of a traffic infraction, was no less valid merely because the officers might also have been entertaining more serious suspicions (see, People v McCoy, 239 AD2d 437, 439, citing Whren v United States, 517 US 806; see also, People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1, 10-11; People v Dougherty, 251 AD2d 344; People v Gelley, 242 AD2d 277; People v Reynolds, 240 AD2d 517). Further, the defendant’s contention that his constitutional rights were violated when the police officer leaned into the car and shined a flashlight over the dashboard is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dickens, 88 NY2d 1031).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.