People v Teasley
2011 NY Slip Op 07141 [88 AD3d 490]
October 11, 2011
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 7, 2011


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
GaryTeasley, Appellant.

[*1]Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Jalina J. Hudsonof counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J., at hearing; Arlene D.Goldberg, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered June 9, 2009, convicting defendant of forgery inthe second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and grand larcenyin the fourth degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to anaggregate term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbingthe court's credibility determinations.

An officer issued a wanted poster containing defendant's photograph. This was based on achain of circumstantial evidence that was sufficient to establish probable cause, which does notrequire proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see generally People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417,423 [1985]). Under the circumstances, defendant's criminal history was a relevant factor indeveloping probable cause, but it was not the principal basis for the officer's suspicion ofdefendant.

Another officer recognized defendant from the wanted poster and lawfully arrested him. Thearresting officer was entitled to act under the fellow officer rule. In any event, the arrestingofficer saw defendant commit a violation in the officer's presence. Therefore, the officer was alsoentitled to arrest defendant on that basis (see People v Lewis, 50 AD3d 595 [2008], lv denied 11NY3d 790 [2008]).

While defendant was under arrest, the police lawfully obtained statements from him. Basedon those statements and other information, the police obtained a valid warrant for defendant'sstorage space.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims. Concur—Mazzarelli,J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.