New York Court of Appeals, 1993

People v. Madera

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 12, 1993 · Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa, Smith and Levine Concur

624 N.E.2d 675; 82 N.Y.2d 775; 604 N.Y.S.2d 538; 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3259 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Commonwealth v. Matos (Pa. 1996)
State v. Young (Wash. 1998)
State v. Young (Wash. 1998)
People v. Gerard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Barnville (New York Supreme Court 2005)
People v. Riddick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Oliver (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Powell (New York Supreme Court 1999)
Scott v. City of New York (Civil Court of the City of New York 1999)
In re Melissa O. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
In re Dalmin M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Smith (New York Supreme Court 1994)
People v. Oeller (N.Y. 1993)
People v. Reyes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)

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.

This People’s appeal, allowed by permission of a dissenting Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, implicates the issue whether police officers reasonably believed that defendant was engaging in criminal activity, justifying their pursuit and detention of him on a New York City street. The trial court and the Appellate Division suppressed the weapon ultimately recovered after the street chase and apprehension of defendant.

The legal standard is not at issue, but only its application to undisputed facts. Thus, the threshold question for this Court’s review is limited to whether the determination of the mixed question of law and fact — lack of reasonable suspicion of criminality to support the police officers’ belief for the pursuit action undertaken — is supported by this record (see, People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477). Since it is, this Court’s review is concluded and the order of the Appellate Division must be affirmed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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