People v Selby

Annotate this Case
People v Selby 2011 NY Slip Op 01587 Decided on March 3, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 3, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
4415 4852/08

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

v

David Selby, Defendant-Appellant.




Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York
(John Vang of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Christopher
P. Marinelli of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J. at suppression hearing; Renee A. White, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 29, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). In an area known for drug activity, a trained and experienced narcotics officer saw defendant converse briefly with a man known to the officer to be a local seller of heroin and cocaine. Defendant received an unidentified object from the known drug dealer in exchange for money. These circumstances provided probable cause for defendant's arrest (see People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835, 837 [1997]; People v Frierson, 61 AD3d 448 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 915 [2009]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

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

ENTERED: MARCH 3, 2011

CLERK

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.