| People v Mendez |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07311 [44 AD3d 302] |
| October 2, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AngelMendez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Paula-Rose Stark of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J., at suppressionhearing; Bruce Allen, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 15, 2005, convictingdefendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a forgedinstrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to anaggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police properly approacheddefendant and his van with weapons drawn, based upon statements by an identified informantwhose reliability and basis of knowledge were, at least, sufficient to meet the standard ofreasonable suspicion (see People v Herold, 282 AD2d 1, 4-5 [2001], lv denied 97NY2d 682 [2001]). The informant made his statement while under arrest for possession ofheroin. That circumstance enhanced the reliability of his statements, since "it . . .can also be inferred that an individual in the informant's position would not lightly mislead thepolice and thereby exacerbate his predicament" (People v Comforto, 62 NY2d 725, 727[1984]). Furthermore, his information was based on his personal dealings with defendant, andsince he was admitting to a series of narcotics purchases he was making a declaration againstpenal interest (see People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 403-404 [1985]). Moreover, theinformant's prediction of defendant's behavior was substantially accurate. After lawfullyapproaching, the police recovered a firearm from defendant's van as a result of a plain viewobservation, made from a vantage point that resulted [*2]fromtheir exercise of reasonable safety precautions (see People v Barrett, 14 AD3d 369 [2005]; People vGonzalez, 298 AD2d 133 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 558 [2002]).Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.