New York Court of Appeals, 1977

People v. Richardson

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 22, 1977 · Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur

41 N.Y.2d 886; 41 N.Y. 886; 362 N.E.2d 613; 393 N.Y.S.2d 983; 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 1928

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Abraham Operations Assoc. LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
People v. Kuzdzal (N.Y. 2018)
People v. Valentine (New York Supreme Court 2001)
People v. Davis (New York County Courts 1996)
State v. Webster Publishing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Rosenstock v. Weberman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Niederberg v. Raleigh Realty Co. (New York Supreme Court 1983)
People v. Katz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
People v. Isaacson (N.Y. 1978)
Lefkowitz v. Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
Lefkowitz v. Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1978)
People v. Erwin (N.Y. 1977)
People v. Gruttola (N.Y. 1977)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Memorandum. There should be an affirmance. The police properly relied on information supplied to them by the air *887 line’s customer service agent (see People v Moore, 32 NY2d 67, 69-70). Based on the observation by the airline’s agent, the police reasonably suspected that defendant was about to commit a crime involving a forged instrument and, accordingly, by statute could demand of defendant his name, address and an explanation of his conduct (CPL 140.50, subd 1). Credibility is a factual question not generally within the scope of our review (People v Concepcion, 38 NY2d 211, 213). The conflict here between the testimony of the police and that of defendant constituted such an issue and was within the fact-finding power of the Appellate Division which, upon its review, affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.