Appellate Division, Fourth Department · July 24, 2026 · 2026 NY Slip Op 04617
People v Asbury
Read the official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 04617
This record is held from search listings because it does not meet the site’s substance floor; the official text is linked below.
Holding The court held that the People failed to establish probable cause for the defendant’s arrest because the basis of knowledge for the civilian informant’s identification was not sufficiently detailed or corroborated. Consequently, the firearm and subsequent statements were suppressed, the guilty plea was vacated, and the indictment was dismissed.
The court’s words
the level of detail needed to enable the court to determine whether her identification of defendant was more than mere speculation is lacking
2026 NY Slip Op 04617, at the official text
the People never offered the supporting deposition or the video of the underlying incident at the suppression hearing
2026 NY Slip Op 04617, at the official text
the court was relegated to reliance upon the first officer's conclusory statement provided to him by the civilian property owner
2026 NY Slip Op 04617, at the official text
the firearm recovered from defendant's person, as well as the statements he subsequently made to the police, must be suppressed
2026 NY Slip Op 04617, at the official text
| Court | Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
|---|---|
| Decided | July 24, 2026 |
| Citation | 2026 NY Slip Op 04617 |
| Area of law | Criminal Procedure |
| Week | Week ending July 25, 2026 |
| Official text | Official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 04617 |
| Publication status | Slip opinions are uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
| Source feed | New York slip opinion page |
| Law Watch record id | 417 |
Recommended citation
ESQ HQ, New York Law Watch, People v Asbury, 2026 NY Slip Op 04617 (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, July 24, 2026), https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-04617/
How this record was made
Holding drafted by Law Watch’s in-house model, graded by three reviewers; every quotation verified word for word against the official text.
Read how Law Watch works