From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 11, 2003
303 A.D.2d 209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

447

March 11, 2003.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J. at hearing; Arlene Silverman, J. at plea and sentence), rendered February 15, 2000, convicting defendant of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Zachary H. Johnson, for respondent.

Karen M. Kalikow, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Marlow, JJ.


Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. Defendant's argument that the radio transmissions from the undercover and "ghost" officers, relating that a "positive buy" involving two described individuals had transpired, were insufficient to establish probable cause to arrest defendant because they contained no information about his role in the drug transaction, is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would adhere to our prior decisions that have repeatedly rejected this argument (see e.g. People v. Muniz, 276 A.D.2d 346, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 762; People v. Shorter, 275 A.D.2d 253, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 761; People v. Acevedo, 179 A.D.2d 465, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 996).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 11, 2003
303 A.D.2d 209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Daniels

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARYL DANIELS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 11, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 601

Citing Cases

People v. Harris

Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. This Court has repeatedly rejected defendant's argument…