People v. Condello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Condello

210 A.D.2d 921, 621 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13395

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 921 (People v. Condello) 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. Condello, 210 A.D.2d 921, 621 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in failing to suppress the [922]*922evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search of his home and automobiles. The record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that no warrant was necessaiy because the police obtained the voluntary consent of a party who possessed the requisite authority or control over the premises or property that was the subject of the search (see, Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 412 US 218; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1, 8, cert denied 454 US 854; People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286, 290; People v Johnson, 202 AD2d 966, 967, lv denied 84 NY2d 827).

There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the failure of the court to revoke his permit to carry a firearm at the time of his prior felony conviction bars this prosecution. There is an automatic revocation of a pistol permit when the licensee is convicted of a felony (Penal Law § 400.00 [11]; Matter of Shapiro v New York City Police Dept., 157 Misc 2d 28, 31, affd 201 AD2d 333). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in failing to suppress the [922]*922evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search of his home and automobiles. The record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that no warrant was necessaiy because the police obtained the voluntary consent of a party who possessed the requisite authority or control over the premises or property that was the subject of the search (see, Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 412 US 218; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1, 8, cert denied 454 US 854; People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286, 290; People v Johnson, 202 AD2d 966, 967, lv denied 84 NY2d 827).

There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the failure of the court to revoke his permit to carry a firearm at the time of his prior felony conviction bars this prosecution. There is an automatic revocation of a pistol permit when the licensee is convicted of a felony (Penal Law § 400.00 [11]; Matter of Shapiro v New York City Police Dept., 157 Misc 2d 28, 31, affd 201 AD2d 333). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 921, 621 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-condello-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack