People v Adedoyin (Adewale)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Adedoyin (Adewale) 2014 NY Slip Op 51762(U) Decided on December 17, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 17, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570469/2014

The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against

Adewale Adedoyin, Defendant-Respondent.

The People appeal from that portion of an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), dated June 6, 2013, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the count of the accusatory instrument charging defendant with criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree.

Per Curiam.

Order (Verna L. Saunders, J.), dated June 6, 2013, insofar as appealed from, reversed, on the law, motion denied, and the count of the accusatory instrument charging defendant with criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree is reinstated.

The accusatory instrument charging defendant with fifth degree criminal possession of marihuana (see Penal Law § 221.10[1]) was not jurisdictionally defective. The information, comprising the misdemeanor complaint and the arresting police officer's supporting deposition, alleged, inter alia, that during a traffic stop of a car that defendant was driving at the intersection of 175th Street and Walton Avenue in the Bronx, the officer looked inside the car and saw two cigarettes, each containing a green leafy substance "with a distinctive odor" that the officer believed to be marihuana, one on the arm rest of the driver's side door and the other in the vehicle's center console. These allegations, given "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), were sufficient, for pleading purposes, to establish the "public place" and "open to public view" elements of the charged offense (see People v Jackson, 18 NY3d 738, 742-748 [2012]; see also People v Jasmin, 98 AD3d 525, 526 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concur I concur


Decision Date: December 17, 2014

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.