People v. Tinort, 272 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2000). · Go Syfert
People v. Tinort, 272 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Cited for
At page 206 Determining objective credible reason for police information requests4 citing cases“requested police assistance in removing intruders”2 citing courts quote it
  • People v. Robinson, 247 A.D.3d 1560 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2026).published
    Here, as in People v Dixon ( 203 AD3d 1726, 1728 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1032 [2022]), where we relied on Barksdale to determine that the police lawfully requested information from a defendant who was sitting in a vehicle in a p…
  • People v. Anthony Barksdale, 41 N.E.3d 1111 (N.Y. 2015).published 2 cites
    We conclude that there is record support for the determination that the police had an objective credible reason to request information from defendant (see generally People v Hendricks, 43 AD3d 361, 362-363 [1st Dept 2007]; People v Tinort,…
  • People v. Anderson, 306 A.D.2d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003).published
    Upon encountering a group of 9 or 10 persons including defendant descending a staircase from the second floor to the lobby in a drug-prone “trespass affidavit” building, the police had an “ ‘objective credible reason’ to ask defendant whet…
  • People v. Barksdale, 110 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2013).published
At page 207 Greene, 271 AD2d 235). When defendant claimed to have been visiting a friend, but claimed not to know the friend’s name, and supplied an apartment number known…2 citing casesopening of page *207 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Lozado, 90 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).published
    Defendant’s inability to identify his own supposed apartment, along with all the surrounding circumstances, supported the reasonable inference that defendant was not “licensed or privileged” to be in the building (Penal Law § 140.00 [5]),…
  • People v. Nunez, 61 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2009).published
    Defendant’s recent, exclusive possession of the property warranted the inference that he was guilty of either robbery or criminal possession of stolen property (see People v Galbo, 218 NY 283, 290 [1916]), and the possibility that he might…
709 N.Y.S.2d at 511 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Ligon v. City of New York, 925 F. Supp. 2d 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).published
    See, e.g., People v. Hendricks, 43 A.D.3d 361 , 841 N.Y.S.2d 94, 94 (1st Dep’t 2007) (holding that NYCHA building’s "history of drug activity and trespassing” provided "objective, credible reason” for Level 1 inquiry "to determine if defen…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Tornell Tinort
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 18, 2000.
Published opinion
272 A.D.2d 206
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5632
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered November 10, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. When the officer observed defendant in a drug-prone building where the owner had executed a “trespass affidavit” requesting police assistance in removing intruders, the officer, who had made several prior arrests in the building, had an “objective credible reason” to ask defendant whether he lived there, which constituted a level one request for information and not a common-law inquiry (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 191; People v [*207] Greene, 271 AD2d 235). When defendant claimed to have been visiting a friend, but claimed not to know the friend’s name, and supplied an apartment number known by the officer to be non-existent, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass (see, People v Magwood, 260 AD2d 246, lv denied 93 NY2d 1004; People v Rodriguez, 159 AD2d 201, lv denied 76 NY2d 742). Probable cause to arrest for trespass did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of that crime including scienter.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.