People v William

People v William 2011 NY Slip Op 00724 Decided on February 8, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 8, 2011
Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Freedman, Richter, JJ.
4197 432/08

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Tony William, Defendant-Appellant.




Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New
York (Rosemary Herbert of counsel), and Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP, New York (Jonathan K. Chang of counsel), for
appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew E.
Seewald of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O. at suppression hearing; Charles Solomon, J. at suppression ruling, plea, and sentence), rendered April 14, 2009, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court correctly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police properly stopped a cab in which defendant and his codefendant were passengers. When the police first saw the cab, they observed that the passengers matched some general aspects of the radioed description of two men who had just committed a robbery at the same location. Given the close temporal and spatial proximity of these observations to the reported crime, and the absence of other persons, there was a strong likelihood that the men in the cab were the same men wanted for the robbery. This likelihood was sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion (see People v Brown, 22 AD3d 349 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 774 [2006]). Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to suppression of any of the evidence obtained as the result of the stop of the cab. [*2]

The police conducted a showup in a manner that was permissible and not unduly suggestive, given the fast-paced chain of events (see e.g. People v Sanchez, 66 AD3d 420 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 862 [2009]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 8, 2011

CLERK