Marino v. Kahn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marino v. Kahn

49 A.D.3d 741, 855 N.Y.2d 560

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 741 (Marino v. Kahn) 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

Marino v. Kahn, 49 A.D.3d 741, 855 N.Y.2d 560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

It is well settled that “a court order to obtain a blood sample of a suspect may issue provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a ‘clear indication’ that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable” (Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288, 291 [1982]). The People satisfactorily established each of these elements. Upon balancing the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence to the investigation, and the unavailability of less intrusive means of obtaining the evidence, on the one hand, against a concern for the petitioner’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion on the other (id.), we conclude that the petitioner failed to demonstrate “a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition” (Matter of DeFilippo v Rooney, 46 AD3d 681, 682 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

It is well settled that “a court order to obtain a blood sample of a suspect may issue provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a ‘clear indication’ that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable” (Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288, 291 [1982]). The People satisfactorily established each of these elements. Upon balancing the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence to the investigation, and the unavailability of less intrusive means of obtaining the evidence, on the one hand, against a concern for the petitioner’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion on the other (id.), we conclude that the petitioner failed to demonstrate “a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition” (Matter of DeFilippo v Rooney, 46 AD3d 681, 682 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 741, 855 N.Y.2d 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-kahn-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack