Mavity v. Wehner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mavity v. Wehner

22 A.D.2d 1008, 255 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2596

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 1008 (Mavity v. Wehner) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 1008, 255 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mavity-v-wehner-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack