People v. Bovian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bovian

52 A.D.2d 625, 382 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12261

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

DecidedApril 19, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 625 (People v. Bovian) 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. Bovian, 52 A.D.2d 625, 382 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 18, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated April 14, 1975, as, after a hearing, denied the branch of defendant’s motion which sought to suppress physical evidence. Judgment reversed, and order reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law and the facts, motion granted insofar as it sought to suppress physical evidence, and indictment dismissed. The arbitrary stop of the vehicle involved herein for a "routine traffic check” was impermissible (see People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413; People v Holmes, 52 AD2d 629). Cohalan, Margett and Rabin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, [626]*626Acting P. J., and Martuscello, J., concur on constraint of People v Holmes (52 AD2d 629).

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 18, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated April 14, 1975, as, after a hearing, denied the branch of defendant’s motion which sought to suppress physical evidence. Judgment reversed, and order reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law and the facts, motion granted insofar as it sought to suppress physical evidence, and indictment dismissed. The arbitrary stop of the vehicle involved herein for a "routine traffic check” was impermissible (see People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413; People v Holmes, 52 AD2d 629). Cohalan, Margett and Rabin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, [626]*626Acting P. J., and Martuscello, J., concur on constraint of People v Holmes (52 AD2d 629).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 625, 382 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bovian-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack