People v. Cioffi

55 A.D.2d 682, 390 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15446
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 682 (People v. Cioffi) 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. Cioffi, 55 A.D.2d 682, 390 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 19, 1975, convicting him of unlawful possession, etc., of unstamped and unlawfully stamped packages of cigarettes, as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated March 7, 1975, which, after a hearing, denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Judgment and order reversed, on the law and the facts, motion granted, and indictment dismissed. On June 28, 1973 two investigators of the New York State Tax Commission went to a hosiery store pursuant to a complaint. They observed, on a counter, three packages of cigarettes which did not have the requisite New York State tax stamp on them. When the defendant appeared and identified himself as the owner of the store, he was told by the officers that the three packages of cigarettes were illegal. The officers testified that, at the time they told the defendant that the three packages of cigarettes were illegal, they were aware of the fact that it was legal to possess up to two cartons of untaxed cigarettes at any given time. They requested that he give them the rest of the cigarettes. After defendant asked for and was shown the officers’ identification, he proceeded to unlock the door to a room containing more than 1,000 cartons of untaxed cigarettes. The defendant’s motion to suppress the cigarettes as evidence should have been granted. The totality of the circumstances, including the fact that the officers misled the defendant into believing that he had already committed a crime, indicates that the defendant’s consent to the search was merely a submission to authority. Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur. [81 Misc 2d 1.]

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

Related

FREEMAN, DARRION B., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
People v. Freeman
141 A.D.3d 1164 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Ellis
190 Misc. 2d 98 (New York County Courts, 2001)
People v. Driscoll
87 A.D.2d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Howard
90 Misc. 2d 662 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.2d 682, 390 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cioffi-nyappdiv-1976.