People v. Cofresi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cofresi

89 A.D.2d 544, 452 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17591

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.2d 544 (People v. Cofresi) 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. Cofresi, 89 A.D.2d 544, 452 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mazur, J.), entered March 3,1981, granting defendants’ motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion to suppress is denied and the indictment is reinstated. As defendants now concede, in 1980 the United States Supreme Court, in United States v Salvucci (448 US 83), and Rawlings v Kentucky (448 US 98), abolished the “automatic standing” doctrine and it was thus error for the trial court to entertain the motion to suppress the physical evidence seized at the time of their arrest. (See, e.g., People v Buckley, 81 AD2d 511.) Since the Court of Appeals has recently rejected a claim that the doctrine is still viable under the Constitution of this State (People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160), we must reverse the order appealed from and reinstate the indictment. There is no need for another hearing on standing. The record shows that the police officers acted reasonably under the circumstances and did not violate any rights-of the defendants. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Carro, Lupiano and Milonas, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mazur, J.), entered March 3,1981, granting defendants’ motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion to suppress is denied and the indictment is reinstated. As defendants now concede, in 1980 the United States Supreme Court, in United States v Salvucci (448 US 83), and Rawlings v Kentucky (448 US 98), abolished the “automatic standing” doctrine and it was thus error for the trial court to entertain the motion to suppress the physical evidence seized at the time of their arrest. (See, e.g., People v Buckley, 81 AD2d 511.) Since the Court of Appeals has recently rejected a claim that the doctrine is still viable under the Constitution of this State (People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160), we must reverse the order appealed from and reinstate the indictment. There is no need for another hearing on standing. The record shows that the police officers acted reasonably under the circumstances and did not violate any rights-of the defendants. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Carro, Lupiano and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 544, 452 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cofresi-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack