Matter of Terrell H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Terrell H.

128 A.D.3d 417, 8 N.Y.S.3d 210

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

DecidedMay 5, 2015

Docket14996

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.3d 417 (Matter of Terrell H.) 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

Matter of Terrell H., 128 A.D.3d 417, 8 N.Y.S.3d 210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree, and placed him with the Close to Home program for a period of eight months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police. During a lawful investigatory detention (see People v Galloway, 40 AD3d 240 [1st Dept 2007]), lv denied 9 NY3d 844 [2007]) the police only asked clarifying questions that did not require Miranda warnings (see People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29, 33-34 [1976]; Matter of Rennette B., 281 AD2d 78 [1st Dept 2001]). An investigatory seizure of a suspect does not necessarily require the police to administer Miranda warnings before asking any questions (see Berkemer v McCarty, 468 US 420, 436-437 [1984]; People v Bennett, 70 NY2d 891 [1987]).

The fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree, and placed him with the Close to Home program for a period of eight months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police. During a lawful investigatory detention (see People v Galloway, 40 AD3d 240 [1st Dept 2007]), lv denied 9 NY3d 844 [2007]) the police only asked clarifying questions that did not require Miranda warnings (see People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29, 33-34 [1976]; Matter of Rennette B., 281 AD2d 78 [1st Dept 2001]). An investigatory seizure of a suspect does not necessarily require the police to administer Miranda warnings before asking any questions (see Berkemer v McCarty, 468 US 420, 436-437 [1984]; People v Bennett, 70 NY2d 891 [1987]).

The fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 417, 8 N.Y.S.3d 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-terrell-h-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack