People v. Chatman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chatman

268 A.D.2d 299, 700 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 299 (People v. Chatman) 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. Chatman, 268 A.D.2d 299, 700 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered September 23, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant did not establish an expectation of privacy in the apartment in which he was arrested. The record further establishes that the entry into the apartment was, in any event, justified by hot pursuit and exigent circumstances (see, United States v Santana, 427 US 38; People v Mealer, 57 NY2d 214). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered September 23, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant did not establish an expectation of privacy in the apartment in which he was arrested. The record further establishes that the entry into the apartment was, in any event, justified by hot pursuit and exigent circumstances (see, United States v Santana, 427 US 38; People v Mealer, 57 NY2d 214). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 299, 700 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chatman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack