| Matter of Sherrod H. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02777 [116 AD3d 954] |
| April 23, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Sherrod H., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgowand Ingrid Gustalen of counsel; Benjamin Levin on the brief), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, SherrodH. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (McElrath,J.), dated January 15, 2013, which, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court datedNovember 7, 2012, made upon his admission, finding that he had committed an actwhich, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possessionof a weapon in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placedhim on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing, of those branches of Sherrod H.'s omnibus motion which were tosuppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the testimony of the police officers whotestified at the suppression hearing was not incredible as a matter of law, as it was not "'manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory' "(People v Mitchell, 68AD3d 1019, 1019 [2009], quoting People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88[1974]). The evidence established that, after the appellant dropped a clear plastic bagcontaining seven clear ziplock bags containing what appeared to be marijuana, he fledthe scene on foot, which at least justified a stop of the appellant based upon reasonablesuspicion that he was committing a crime (see People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525, 527[2002]). When a police sergeant apprehended the appellant by grabbing him by the frontof his vest, the police sergeant felt an "L" shaped object in the vest, which justified afrisk of the appellant for weapons (see People v Rodriguez, 177 AD2d 521[1991]).
Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly denied those branches of theappellant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence. Rivera, J.P.,Balkin, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.