What did the court decide?

The court affirmed Thompson's conviction and sentence, finding either the challenge to the stop-and-frisk was not preserved or, alternatively, that the 911 tip provided reasonable suspicion for the police to stop and frisk him.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision directly affects Thompson and confirms the conviction; it also affirms that similar 911 tips with identifying details and corroboration can support police stops.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes; Thompson could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but such review is discretionary and not guaranteed.

People v. Thompson

Docket Ind. No. 1954/21|Appeal No. 6427|Case No. 2023-00316|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 21, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02377
Docket numbers: Ind. No1954/21Appeal No6427Case No2023-00316

Appeal from a conviction and sentence following plea and suppression hearing in a criminal prosecution for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Anzar Thompson's conviction and two-year sentence for attempted second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Thompson challenged the stop-and-frisk as unsupported by reasonable suspicion based on a 911 caller's information; the court held the claim was unpreserved and declined review in the interest of justice, but alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the 911 tip reliable because it included identifying details (partial name and callback number), a detailed description and location, and accurate vehicle information corroborated by the officer's observations, which together supplied reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.

Issues Decided

Whether defendant preserved the argument that the 911 caller did not provide sufficient information to give police reasonable suspicion for a stop-and-frisk.
Whether the 911 caller's tip supplied reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the defendant.

Court's Reasoning

The court held the preservation issue against defendant and declined to reach it in the interest of justice, but alternatively found the tip reliable on the merits. The tip was not anonymous because it included a partial name and callback number, and it provided detailed, accurate descriptions of the person, location, and vehicle (including Tennessee plates). The officer's contemporaneous observations corroborated those details, which together supplied reasonable suspicion under the governing statute and cases.

Authorities Cited

CPL 140.50(3)
People v Brannon16 NY3d 596 (2011)
People v Rivera84 AD3d 636 (1st Dept 2011), lv denied 17 NY3d 904 (2011)
People v Hall23 AD3d 151 (1st Dept 2005), lv denied 6 NY3d 754 (2005)
People v Leighton R.2025 NY Slip Op 06534
People v Perez156 AD3d 507 (1st Dept 2017), lv denied 30 NY3d 1118 (2018)

Parties

Appellant: Anzar Thompson
Respondent: The People of the State of New York
Attorney: Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society; Amy Donner (of counsel)
Attorney: Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney; Nathan Morgante (of counsel)
Judge: Renwick, P.J.
Judge: Friedman, J.
Judge: Gesmer, J.
Judge: Pitt-Burke, J.
Judge: Hagler, J.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-21
Judgment rendered: 2023-01-09

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider application for leave to appeal
If defendant wishes to continue, counsel may file for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals within the applicable deadline and present a persuasive reason for further review.
2
Consult appellate counsel about preservation issues
Review the trial record to determine whether any preserved issues remain that could support further appeal or collateral relief.
3
Assess post-conviction remedies
If leave to appeal is denied, evaluate possible collateral challenges (e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel or other post-conviction motions) with counsel.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court affirmed Thompson's conviction and sentence, finding either the challenge to the stop-and-frisk was not preserved or, alternatively, that the 911 tip provided reasonable suspicion for the police to stop and frisk him.
Why was the 911 tip considered reliable?: Because the caller gave identifying details including a partial name and callback number, a detailed description and location, and accurate vehicle information that officers observed and that corroborated the tip.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision directly affects Thompson and confirms the conviction; it also affirms that similar 911 tips with identifying details and corroboration can support police stops.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes; Thompson could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but such review is discretionary and not guaranteed.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

People v Thompson - 2026 NY Slip Op 02377

People v Thompson

2026 NY Slip Op 02377

April 21, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Anzar Thompson, Appellant.

Decided and Entered: April 21, 2026

Ind. No. 1954/21|Appeal No. 6427|Case No. 2023-00316|

Before: Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Hagler, JJ.

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Donner of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Nathan Morgante of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Mandelbaum, J., at suppression hearing, Neil Ross, J., at plea, Gregory Carro, J., at sentencing), rendered January 9, 2023, convicting defendant, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the 911 caller did not provide sufficient information to furnish reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him (
see People v Perez
, 156 AD3d 507, 507 [1st Dept 2017],
lv denied
30 NY3d 1118 [2018]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Alternatively, we reject it on the merits.

Based on the 911 call, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk defendant (
see
CPL 140.50[3];
People v Brannon
, 16 NY3d 596, 601-602 [2011]). The caller's tip was "not anonymous, but rather had identifying characteristics that rendered it reliable, including a partial name and callback number" (
People v Hall
, 23 AD3d 151, 151 [1st Dept 2005],
lv denied
6 NY3d 754 [2005]). The caller "provided a detailed and generally accurate description of defendant . . . as well as [his] location" and accurately described the Tennessee license plates on defendant's car (
People v Rivera
, 84 AD3d 636, 636 [1st Dept 2011],
lv denied
17 NY3d 904 [2011]). The recovering officer's contemporaneous observations of defendant and his car corroborated the caller's information and enhanced the caller's veracity (
see People v Leighton R.
, — NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 06534, *4 [2025]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 21, 2026