People v Turane

Annotate this Case
People v Turane 2011 NY Slip Op 06986 Decided on October 6, 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 October 6, 2011
Tom, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman, Román, JJ.
5651 1964/09

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

v

Trumaine Turane, Defendant-Appellant.



 
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Epstein
of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila L.
Bautista of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J. at suppression hearing; Ruth Pickholz, J. at nonjury trial and sentencing), rendered November 20, 2009, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to an aggregate term of 2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The arresting officers' recollections were sufficient to establish that a nontestifying officer observed defendant selling drugs, thereby providing probable cause for defendant's arrest (see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 419-420 [1999]; People v Washington, 87 NY2d 945 [1996]).

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court's verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We also find that it was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility.

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

ENTERED: OCTOBER 6, 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.