People v Brown (John)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Brown (John) 2007 NY Slip Op 51905(U) [17 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on October 3, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 3, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., SCHOENFELD, HEITLER, JJ
570316/06.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

John Brown, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), rendered April 7, 2006, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted sale of untaxed cigarettes and attempted sale of a taxable item without a valid certificate of authority, and imposing sentence.


Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Robert E. Torres, J.), rendered April 7, 2006, affirmed.

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The police officer's initial observation of defendant handing an individual a pack of cigarettes in exchange for money provided the officer with an objective, credible reason to request information from defendant. The officer's plain view observation, during his conversation with defendant, of numerous unstamped packages of cigarettes in defendant's bag and defendant's failure to produce a certificate of authority to collect sales tax provided probable cause to arrest (see Tax Law §§ 1814[d] and 1817[d]; People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 498-9 [2006]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 215 [1976]).

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). We find no basis to disturb the trial court's credibility determinations.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 3, 2007

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.