Brown v. Monserrate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Monserrate

101 A.D.2d 674, 476 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18214

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 674 (Brown v. Monserrate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Monserrate, 101 A.D.2d 674, 476 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to CPLR 506, subd [b], par 1) to prohibit respondents from enforcing a search warrant. H A hearing should be held and expert testimony received concerning the conclusiveness and probative value of the enzyme phenotyping procedure and microscopic comparison of human hair analysis sought by the police. Such evidence should include, but not be limited to, the results obtained from testing the spermatozoa found in the victims’ bodies and the human hairs recovered from their beds, and the frequency of occurrence of the same characteristics in the general population (see Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288; People v Borcsok, 114 Mise 2d 810). Determination of the proceeding will be held in abeyance in the interim. ¶ Decision withheld, and matter remitted to County Court of Tompkins County for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Kane, J. P., Main,

Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to CPLR 506, subd [b], par 1) to prohibit respondents from enforcing a search warrant. H A hearing should be held and expert testimony received concerning the conclusiveness and probative value of the enzyme phenotyping procedure and microscopic comparison of human hair analysis sought by the police. Such evidence should include, but not be limited to, the results obtained from testing the spermatozoa found in the victims’ bodies and the human hairs recovered from their beds, and the frequency of occurrence of the same characteristics in the general population (see Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288; People v Borcsok, 114 Mise 2d 810). Determination of the proceeding will be held in abeyance in the interim. ¶ Decision withheld, and matter remitted to County Court of Tompkins County for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Kane, J. P., Main,

Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 674, 476 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-monserrate-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack