| People v Rivera |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04305 [84 AD3d 636] |
| May 24, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AndreRivera, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas A. Farber, J., at suppression hearing;Daniel P. FitzGerald, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered October 17, 2008, convictingdefendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as asecond violent felony offender, to a term of 11 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The officers had reasonablesuspicion of criminality, which justified a stop and frisk. The information possessed by the policewent well beyond an uncorroborated anonymous tip (see People v Herold, 282 AD2d 1,6-7 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 682 [2001]; compare Florida v J.L., 529 US 266[2000]).
Many factors enhanced the reliability of the information provided by a 911 caller. "Theinformation the police relied on came from a source that was not anonymous, but rather hadidentifying characteristics that rendered it reliable, including a partial name and callback number"(People v Hall, 23 AD3d 151,151 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 754 [2005]). There were two communications with thiscomplainant. In the first, he called 911, and in the second the police called him back. In eachcommunication, the caller did not merely report the presence of a person with a firearm, but alsothat this person had threatened to kill him. Both communications were excited utterances, whichwas another factor enhancing their reliability (see People v Govantes, 297 AD2d 551,552 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 558 [2002]). Finally, the caller provided a detailed andgenerally accurate description of defendant and one of his companions, as well as their locationand direction of travel.
Defendant did not preserve his remaining suppression argument and we decline to review itin the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Defendant[*2]asserts that the officer continued his frisk after concludingthat the object he felt in defendant's pocket was not a weapon. However, the hearing evidencefails to support that assertion. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta andAbdus-Salaam, JJ.