People v. Bagby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bagby

100 A.D.2d 627, 473 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17615

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.2d 627 (People v. Bagby) 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. Bagby, 100 A.D.2d 627, 473 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Renewed motion by defendant to unseal and make available to his attorney certain notes made by the Honorable Irving Kendall, Judge of the City Court of Mount Vernon, on December 26, 1978, of his interview with an informant at the time the application for a search warrant was made, which notes were sealed and made a part of the record of this case to be used for appellate review by order of the County Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated March 19, 1979. K Motion denied. H The traditional tests as to the reliability of an informant do not apply when the magistrate identifies and personally examines the informant and issues a warrant only after being satisfied of the reliability (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90; People v Holley, 56 AD2d 684). Some foundation must be made before privileged matter affecting the substantive issues will be disclosed and the issue is one to be determined in the exercise of the sound discretion of the trial court. Bare assertions or conclusory allegations that a witness is needed to establish innocence will not suffice (People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163,169, cert den 419 US 1012). Defendant has not established that any information regarding the informant should be provided to him, despite his theories that the officer who applied for the warrant either switched informants or that there was in fact no informant. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

Renewed motion by defendant to unseal and make available to his attorney certain notes made by the Honorable Irving Kendall, Judge of the City Court of Mount Vernon, on December 26, 1978, of his interview with an informant at the time the application for a search warrant was made, which notes were sealed and made a part of the record of this case to be used for appellate review by order of the County Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated March 19, 1979. K Motion denied. H The traditional tests as to the reliability of an informant do not apply when the magistrate identifies and personally examines the informant and issues a warrant only after being satisfied of the reliability (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90; People v Holley, 56 AD2d 684). Some foundation must be made before privileged matter affecting the substantive issues will be disclosed and the issue is one to be determined in the exercise of the sound discretion of the trial court. Bare assertions or conclusory allegations that a witness is needed to establish innocence will not suffice (People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163,169, cert den 419 US 1012). Defendant has not established that any information regarding the informant should be provided to him, despite his theories that the officer who applied for the warrant either switched informants or that there was in fact no informant. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 627, 473 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bagby-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack