People v. Burdick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burdick

168 A.D.2d 835, 564 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15765

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 835 (People v. Burdick) 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. Burdick, 168 A.D.2d 835, 564 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered November 6, 1989, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the [836]*836crimes of forgery in the second degree (three counts) and petit larceny (three counts).

Although defendant claims that his confession was involuntary, the investigator who took defendant’s statement testified that while he did tell defendant that he would not be arrested on the day of his confession, he also told defendant that he would be arrested at a later date. With respect to the question of restitution, the investigator testified that all he did was inform defendant that the issue was for the court to decide. In denying the motion to suppress, County Court credited the investigator’s testimony. Credibility is a question of fact and the record before us fails to indicate the existence of any extraordinary circumstances (see, People v Jackson, 101 AD2d 955); therefore, we conclude that the court properly determined that the confession was not given as the result of any promises or threats made by the investigator to defendant. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them similarly lacking in merit.

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered November 6, 1989, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the [836]*836crimes of forgery in the second degree (three counts) and petit larceny (three counts).

Although defendant claims that his confession was involuntary, the investigator who took defendant’s statement testified that while he did tell defendant that he would not be arrested on the day of his confession, he also told defendant that he would be arrested at a later date. With respect to the question of restitution, the investigator testified that all he did was inform defendant that the issue was for the court to decide. In denying the motion to suppress, County Court credited the investigator’s testimony. Credibility is a question of fact and the record before us fails to indicate the existence of any extraordinary circumstances (see, People v Jackson, 101 AD2d 955); therefore, we conclude that the court properly determined that the confession was not given as the result of any promises or threats made by the investigator to defendant. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them similarly lacking in merit.

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 835, 564 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burdick-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack