PEOPLE v. WIDEMAN (2022)

OPINION OF THE COURT

 MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A determination of reasonable suspicion is a mixed question of law and fact which we review for record support justifying the officer's action (see People v. Parker, 32 N.Y.3d 49, 55, 109 N.E.3d 1138 [2018]).  On the unique facts of this case, there is record support for the Appellate Division's finding of reasonable suspicion to conduct the pat frisk for officer safety (see generally People v. Batista, 88 N.Y.2d 650, 654–655, 649 N.Y.S.2d 356, 672 N.E.2d 581 [1996]).^*  Defendant's remaining claim also lacks merit, as he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the suppression of allegedly material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 [1963]) (see e.g. People v. Garrett, 23 N.Y.3d 878, 892, 994 N.Y.S.2d 22, 18 N.E.3d 722 [2014]).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We have no occasion to consider whether a search for weapons is reasonable when it is solely justified by a missing or endangered person report.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Wilson, Singas, Cannataro and Troutman concur.