People v. Arokium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arokium

33 A.D.3d 458, 822 N.Y.S.2d 442

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 458 (People v. Arokium) 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

People v. Arokium, 33 A.D.3d 458, 822 N.Y.S.2d 442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J), rendered June 3, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

[459]*459The court properly denied the Mapp/Dunaway branch of defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. Defendant’s assertions of innocent conduct at the time of his arrest, and his general denial of “the allegations in the accusatory instrument” failed to either controvert the specific information that was provided by the People concerning the prior criminal activity that formed the predicate for his arrest, or to provide any other basis for suppression (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721 [2001]; People v Soto, 284 AD2d 158 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 924 [2001]; see also People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753 [2005]; compare People v Hightower, 85 NY2d 988 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J), rendered June 3, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

[459]*459The court properly denied the Mapp/Dunaway branch of defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. Defendant’s assertions of innocent conduct at the time of his arrest, and his general denial of “the allegations in the accusatory instrument” failed to either controvert the specific information that was provided by the People concerning the prior criminal activity that formed the predicate for his arrest, or to provide any other basis for suppression (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721 [2001]; People v Soto, 284 AD2d 158 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 924 [2001]; see also People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753 [2005]; compare People v Hightower, 85 NY2d 988 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 458, 822 N.Y.S.2d 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arokium-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack