People v. Bergers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bergers

50 A.D.2d 764, 377 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11559

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 764 (People v. Bergers) 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. Bergers, 50 A.D.2d 764, 377 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, ren[765]*765dered June 27, 1973, after jury trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion to suppress evidence granted, and the indictment dismissed. The stop by police of the auto in which contraband was found was no less based on mere suspicion than that in People v Martinez, (37 NY2d 662), nor even the situation found in Terry v Ohio (392 US 1). It was based, as far as the record goes, on the fact that the vehicle bore out-of-State plates and had been seen in the neighborhood earlier that day. See the discussion of cases on the subject per Lutsky, J., People v Grant (85 Misc 2d 70). On the facts here found, it does not appear necessary to consider whether People v Ingle (36 NY2d 413), continues to be nonretroactive in effect (People v Simone, 48 AD 2d 497) or was actually declared retroactive in People v Martinez (supra). Concur: — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, ren[765]*765dered June 27, 1973, after jury trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion to suppress evidence granted, and the indictment dismissed. The stop by police of the auto in which contraband was found was no less based on mere suspicion than that in People v Martinez, (37 NY2d 662), nor even the situation found in Terry v Ohio (392 US 1). It was based, as far as the record goes, on the fact that the vehicle bore out-of-State plates and had been seen in the neighborhood earlier that day. See the discussion of cases on the subject per Lutsky, J., People v Grant (85 Misc 2d 70). On the facts here found, it does not appear necessary to consider whether People v Ingle (36 NY2d 413), continues to be nonretroactive in effect (People v Simone, 48 AD 2d 497) or was actually declared retroactive in People v Martinez (supra). Concur: — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 764, 377 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bergers-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack