| Matter of Malik L. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00246 [58 AD3d 520] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Malik L., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), forpresentment agency.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on orabout April 1, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission thathe committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and placed him with the Office ofChildren and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied appellant's suppression motion. The totality of the circumstancessupports the conclusion that the police possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion for a stopand frisk (see People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267, 271 [1980]). A police lieutenanttestified that the police were responding to a radio call of shots fired in the area. This radio calldescribed the location and direction of travel of a large group of juveniles, and the policeencountered a corresponding group that included appellant. The lieutenant also spoke to anotheryouth who had come from that group, and who implied that one or more members of the groupwere armed. Upon approaching the group, the lieutenant heard the sound of metal hitting thepavement, and discovered a box cutter in the area of the group. At this point, the lieutenantordered the group against the wall, and they were frisked. We conclude that under thesecircumstances, the lieutenant had reason to be concerned for the safety of himself and the otherofficers present, especially in light of the crime they were investigating (see e.g.People v Rivera, 165 AD2d 756 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 842 [1991]).
Appellant also argues that the information in the lieutenant's possession was irrelevantbecause it was not conveyed to the officer who actually frisked appellant and found firearms onhis person. Appellant claims this officer acted on his own accord and with insufficientinformation to support a frisk. This line of argument is unpreserved and we decline to review itin the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Contrary toappellant's characterization of the testimony, the evidence supports the conclusion that it was thelieutenant who ordered the group of juveniles against a wall, effectuating the seizure of appellantand the others, and that the officer who conducted the frisk of appellant acted lawfully pursuantto the fellow officer rule (see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416 [1999]).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.