You are here: / / THE POLICE CAR FOLLOWED DEFENDANT, FIVE FEET BEHIND HIM, AS HE WALKED THROUGH...
,

THE POLICE CAR FOLLOWED DEFENDANT, FIVE FEET BEHIND HIM, AS HE WALKED THROUGH A NARROW PASSAGEWAY; THE POLICE WERE NOT IN PURSUIT AND THE HANDGUN DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the police, who followed defendant in a police car as he walked through a narrow passageway (a cut-through) between two streets, were not in pursuit of defendant. Therefore the weapon discarded by the defendant was properly seized:

The evidence at the suppression hearing established that a police officer responding to the sound of gunshots observed a person walking towards him a few blocks away from the location of the incident. The officer lost sight of the person before he was able to speak with him to determine whether the person had heard the gunshots, but he relayed over the police radio a generic physical description of the person he had encountered and that person’s location. Shortly thereafter, a second police officer encountered defendant not far from the radioed position. The second officer engaged defendant in a brief conversation from her patrol vehicle, after which defendant entered a nearby cut-through—i.e., a pedestrian pathway that connected two streets. When defendant first entered the cut-through, the second officer did not consider him a suspect in the shooting and he was not engaged in any unlawful activity. Nonetheless, the second officer, still in her patrol vehicle and now accompanied by another officer in a separate patrol vehicle, followed defendant along the pathway, maintaining a distance of about five feet from defendant. The cut-through was so narrow at one point that the officers would not have been able to open the doors of their patrol vehicles. When defendant reached the end of the cut-through, he removed a handgun from his pocket and ran. As he ran, defendant discarded the handgun and was thereafter arrested. * * *

The police did not activate their vehicles’ overhead lights or sirens, exit their vehicles, or significantly limit defendant’s freedom of movement along the pedestrian path … . Indeed, defendant remained free to keep walking down the path, even if at one point on the path he could not have turned around and traveled in the opposite direction. People v Allen, 2020 NY Slip Op 06594, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

You might also like
PURELY CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT WILL NOT SURVIVE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE APPEAL WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE AND THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET; THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS HELD BUT SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE A RULING; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED AGAIN FOR THE RULING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE BREACH OF CONTRACT SUIT STEMMED FROM CONSTRUCTION DELAYS; THE LOST PROFITS CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SPECULATIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WHEN DEFENDANT WAS FOUR CAR LENGTHS AWAY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WAS YELLOW DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)
EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) HAD BEEN IMPOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BECAUSE THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF PRS IS NOW CLEAR, SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE NO DETERRENT EFFECT AND IS NOT THEREFORE NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PULLED A LOAD OF WASTE BACKWARDS THROUGH AN ACCESS DOOR APPARENTLY EXPECTING THE LIFT TO BE POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE DOOR; THE LIFT HAD MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE THIRD FLOOR TO THE GROUND; THE ACCESS DOOR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCKED BEFORE THE LIFT MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ACCESS DOOR LOCK, A SAFETY DEVICE, WAS MISSING (FOURTH DEPT).
No Exigent Circumstances—Warrantless Search of Home Not Justified
CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET, DISSENTERS ARGUED THE COURT HAD THE DISCRETION TO CONSIDER THE MOTION AS A MOTION TO REARGUE (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION... THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S...