People v. Cruz

110 A.D.2d 905, 488 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48809
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Cruz. Read the opinion of the Court — 100 A.D.2d 882

Opinion

Defendant’s contention to the contrary notwithstanding, the hearing court did not err in determining that suppression of the items which the police officer seized from his automobile was not warranted (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759). Under the facts of this case, People v Class (63 NY2d 491, cert granted _ US _, 53 USLW 3702) is not a holding to the contrary.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting defense counsel’s examination of prospective jurors is without merit (see, People v Pepper, 59 NY2d 353, 358-359; People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135).

Finally, defendant’s Sandoval contention lacks merit and, in any event, if any error was committed, it was harmless. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Cruz, 110 A.D.2d 905, 488 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

110 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Cruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Boulware
272 N.E.2d 538 (New York Court of Appeals, 1971)
People v. Pepper
452 N.E.2d 1178 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Class
472 N.E.2d 1009 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)