In re Efrain R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Efrain R.

228 A.D.2d 303, 643 N.Y.2d 998, 643 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7143

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

DecidedJune 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 303 (In re Efrain R.) 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

In re Efrain R., 228 A.D.2d 303, 643 N.Y.2d 998, 643 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[304]*304As conceded by the presentment agency, respondent’s allocution was inadequate because the court failed to inform him or his mother of all possible dispositional consequences of his plea and to ascertain that they understood those consequences (Family Ct Act § 321.3 [1]), and the matter therefore should be remanded for a new fact-finding hearing (Matter of Walker, 144 AD2d 306).

We note, however, that the court properly denied respondent’s suppression motion without a hearing (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415). The court properly found that respondent lacked standing to challenge the police officer’s retrieval of the glassines of heroin from underneath the garbage bag, since respondent had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in that public space (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99). Moreover, under the facts conceded by respondent in his moving papers, probable cause existed to arrest respondent, since it was reasonable under the evidence presented for the court to draw the inference that the officer who observed respondent selling heroin communicated those observations to the arresting officers (supra). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

[304]*304As conceded by the presentment agency, respondent’s allocution was inadequate because the court failed to inform him or his mother of all possible dispositional consequences of his plea and to ascertain that they understood those consequences (Family Ct Act § 321.3 [1]), and the matter therefore should be remanded for a new fact-finding hearing (Matter of Walker, 144 AD2d 306).

We note, however, that the court properly denied respondent’s suppression motion without a hearing (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415). The court properly found that respondent lacked standing to challenge the police officer’s retrieval of the glassines of heroin from underneath the garbage bag, since respondent had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in that public space (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99). Moreover, under the facts conceded by respondent in his moving papers, probable cause existed to arrest respondent, since it was reasonable under the evidence presented for the court to draw the inference that the officer who observed respondent selling heroin communicated those observations to the arresting officers (supra). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 303, 643 N.Y.2d 998, 643 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-efrain-r-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack