People v Rivera

Annotate this Case
People v Rivera 2015 NY Slip Op 03457 Decided on April 28, 2015 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 April 28, 2015
Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Gische, JJ.
14940 5309N/11

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

v

Isaac Rivera, Defendant-Appellant.



Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Richard E. Mischel of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila L. Bautista of counsel), and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York (Regina Y. Won of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J. at suppression hearing; Laura A. Ward, J. at plea; Melissa C. Jackson, J. at sentencing), rendered February 4, 2013, as amended March 4, 2013, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. The odor of marijuana provided probable cause to arrest defendant and search his car (see People v Robinson, 103 AD3d 421, 421-422 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 20 NY3d 1103 [2013]). The search of the area under the car's center console came within the proper scope of a search pursuant to the automobile exception (see People v Langen, 60 NY2d 170, 180-182 [1983], cert denied 465 US 1028 [1984]), and was particularly reasonable in light of the officer's observation that the console appeared to have been altered to create a hiding place for drugs.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 28, 2015

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.