People v. Castro
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- In re Jakiyo L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Green (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Sapp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Sledge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Hernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Vehap (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- In re Allan P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Evans (N.Y. 1994)
- In re Frankie M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Sattan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Agyman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Cartagena (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. Washington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. Beach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. DeJesus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Irizarry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Welcome (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- In re Kelvin P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- In re Elvin M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant argues on this appeal that the police acted unreasonably in conducting a pat-down search based on a tip supplied by an informant during a face-to-face encounter with police that defendant had a gun and said that he intended to "rip off a 'queen’ ”.
Resolution of this question turns primarily on an assessment of the credibility of the officer who testified before the suppression court. Thus, in view of the undisturbed finding that the police possessed reasonable suspicion to frisk defendant, his contention presents a mixed question of law and fact, which we will review only to the extent of determining whether there was evidence at the suppression hearing to support the hearing court’s determination (People v Van Lucen, 64 NY2d 625; People c Vincente, 63 NY2d 745). Because such record support exists, we conclude that the motion to suppress was properly denied.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.