| People v Larmond |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03502 [106 AD3d 934] |
| May 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Appellant, v Robert Larmond, Respondent. |
—[*1] Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Anna Pervukhin of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Paynter,J.), dated November 10, 2011, which granted that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress certain physical evidence and his statement to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the arresting officers lacked anobjective, credible reason for approaching the defendant and two other men, who werestanding on the street at 6:00 p.m., to ask them what they were doing (see People vHollman, 79 NY2d 181, 184 [1992]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223[1976]; People v Miles, 82AD3d 1010, 1010-1011 [2011]). The officer who testified at the suppression hearingfailed to articulate any reason for approaching the three men, other than that they werestanding in the roadway on a dead-end street while talking and making unspecified handgestures, and there was no evidence that the men were obstructing traffic. This, standingalone, did not constitute a sufficient basis for the officers to approach the men andrequest information (see People v McIntosh, 96 NY2d 521, 527 [2001]; Matter of Michael F., 84 AD3d468 [2011]; People v Miles, 82 AD3d at 1010-1011; cf. People vHollman, 79 NY2d 181 [1992]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976]; People v Pearson, 59 AD3d743, 744 [2009]; People vMoyaho, 12 AD3d 692, 693 [2004]). Accordingly, the physical evidence seizedand the statement made by the defendant were properly suppressed. Eng, P.J., Rivera,Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.