People v. Carson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carson

216 A.D.2d 965, 629 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 965 (People v. Carson) 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. Carson, 216 A.D.2d 965, 629 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Local criminal courts have preliminary jurisdiction of all offenses (CPL 10.30 [2]). The issuance of a search warrant involves the exercise of preliminary jurisdiction (see, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 10.30 [1992]). A "county judge sitting as a local criminal court” is a " '[l]ocal criminal court’ ” (CPL 10.10 [3] [g]) with the authority to issue search warrants. Although not in effect when the subject warrant was issued, CPL 690.35 (2) now expressly provides that an application for a search warrant may be made to a County Court Judge. Thus, we reject defendant’s contentions that County Court was not acting as a local criminal court when it issued the search warrant and that the warrant was defective because it did not state that the Judge was sitting as a local criminal court. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.—Criminal Possession Marihuana, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Local criminal courts have preliminary jurisdiction of all offenses (CPL 10.30 [2]). The issuance of a search warrant involves the exercise of preliminary jurisdiction (see, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 10.30 [1992]). A "county judge sitting as a local criminal court” is a " '[l]ocal criminal court’ ” (CPL 10.10 [3] [g]) with the authority to issue search warrants. Although not in effect when the subject warrant was issued, CPL 690.35 (2) now expressly provides that an application for a search warrant may be made to a County Court Judge. Thus, we reject defendant’s contentions that County Court was not acting as a local criminal court when it issued the search warrant and that the warrant was defective because it did not state that the Judge was sitting as a local criminal court. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.—Criminal Possession Marihuana, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 965, 629 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack