People v Jie Chen

Annotate this Case
People v Jie Chen 2015 NY Slip Op 05260 Decided on June 18, 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 June 18, 2015
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, Kapnick, JJ.
15470 551/08

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

v

Jie Chen, Defendant-Appellant.



Stephen Shaiken, Flushing, for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Katherine A. Gregory of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered September 16, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of failure to disclose the origin of a recording in the first degree, and sentencing her to a term of five years' probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo , 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]), including its acceptance of a specially trained officer's testimony that, before arresting defendant, he observed that the DVDs defendant was selling were counterfeit. Accordingly, the officer had probable cause for defendant's arrest.

Defendant's remaining suppression argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. We note that the People were never placed on notice of any need to develop the record (see People v Martin , 50 NY2d 1029 [1980]; People v Tutt , 38 NY2d 1011 [1976]) as to the particular issue defendant now raises. As an alternative holding, we find that the hearing record, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, support the conclusion that the search of defendant's bag was justified.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 18, 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.