Mavity v. Wehner

22 A.D.2d 1008, 255 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2596
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 10, 1964·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal- to either party. Memorandum: In affirming the denial .of a motion to suppress a statement obtained by a private person in.violation of section 270-to of the Penal Law we also desire to point out that there is no statutory-provision for this motion. As to the admissibility of the' statement in question (see Sackler v. Sackler, 15 N Y 2d 40; Neff v. Franklinville Roofing Co., 308 N. Y. 946; Bloodgood v. Lynch, 293 N. Y. 308; Matter of Thanhauser v. Milprint, Inc., 9 A D 2d 833). (Appeal from [1009]*1009order of Monroe Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion to suppress a statement given defendants by plaintiff, Patricia A. Mavity.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Mavity v. Wehner, 22 A.D.2d 1008, 255 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

22 A.D.2d 1008 (Mavity v. Wehner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Iannielli v. Consolidated Edison Co.
75 A.D.2d 223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)