People v. Burton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burton

16 A.D.3d 241, 790 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3004

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 241 (People v. Burton) 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. Burton, 16 A.D.3d 241, 790 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered August 27, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 31/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing, since his factual allegations did not establish a legal basis for the motion (see CPL 710.60 [1], [3]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 432-433 [1993]; People v Gomez, 67 NY2d 843 [1986]). Although defendant necessarily had direct knowledge of the relevant facts, he did not sufficiently allege that he was aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered August 27, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 31/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing, since his factual allegations did not establish a legal basis for the motion (see CPL 710.60 [1], [3]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 432-433 [1993]; People v Gomez, 67 NY2d 843 [1986]). Although defendant necessarily had direct knowledge of the relevant facts, he did not sufficiently allege that he was aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 241, 790 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burton-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack