Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. William 19 N.Y.3d 891

← Cases

People v. William

19 N.Y.3d 891 Court N.Y. Decision date 2012-06-12 English

Contents

Majority

p. 891
[971 NE2d 859, 948 NYS2d 578]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony William, Appellant.
Argued May 2, 2012;
decided June 12, 2012
p. 892
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York City (Jonathan K. Chang, Edmond Polubinski, III, and Jonathan Stroble of counsel), and Office of the Appellate Defender (Richard M. Greenberg and Rosemary Herbert of counsel) for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Andrew E. Seewald and Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.
p. 893
OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Whether the circumstances of a particular case rise to the level of reasonable suspicion presents a mixed question of law and fact that is beyond our review if the determination has record support (see People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525 , 527 [2002]). In this case, although different conclusions may have been reasonable at the fact-finding level, record evidence supports the lower courts’ determination that the police possessed reasonable suspicion and our review therefore ends (see People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234 , 238 [1986]). Similarly, “[w]hether a showup is reasonable under the circumstances and/or unduly suggestive are mixed questions of law and fact” (People v Gilford, 16 NY3d 864 , 868 [2011]). The determinations of the courts below that the showup was reasonable and not unduly suggestive are supported by the record and are likewise beyond our further review.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cases cited