Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. MILLINER

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Jan 23, 1989

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The arresting officer testified that he observed the defendant leaning against a telephone pole in a high-crime area and that the defendant, who was wearing a tee shirt underneath an open fur coat, had a large bulge at his waistline. When the defendant pulled the tee shirt down, apparently in response to the officer's approach, the outline of what appeared to be a weapon was revealed, thus justifying the ensuing patdown of the bulge and retrieval of what proved to be a .45 caliber, semiautomatic pistol (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; cf., CPL 140.50, [3]). We discern no basis for disturbing the suppression court's finding that the officer's testimony was credible (see, People v Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700; cf., People v Prochilo, supra). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.