People v. Darby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Darby

46 A.D.2d 775, 360 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 775 (People v. Darby) 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. Darby, 46 A.D.2d 775, 360 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 4, 1974, convicting him of attempted possession of a weapon, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review a decision denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Judgment affirmed. The charges against defendant were based on evidence seized upon execution of a search warrant.- As appears from the record, the application for the warrant was made orally to the court upon the return of wiretap orders. In support of the application, a police officer gave sworn testimony about conversations overheard while the wiretap orders were in effect, and the wiretap orders were received into evidence as part of the application. CPL 690.35 (subd. 1) states that “an application for a search warrant must be in writing .and must he made, subscribed and sworn to by a public servant ”. We hold that the statute was substantially complied with by the procedure followed. It is our view, however, that it is the better practice that, absent ■special circumstances, the application be stated in a separate writing, subscribed and sworn to. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 4, 1974, convicting him of attempted possession of a weapon, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review a decision denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Judgment affirmed. The charges against defendant were based on evidence seized upon execution of a search warrant.- As appears from the record, the application for the warrant was made orally to the court upon the return of wiretap orders. In support of the application, a police officer gave sworn testimony about conversations overheard while the wiretap orders were in effect, and the wiretap orders were received into evidence as part of the application. CPL 690.35 (subd. 1) states that “an application for a search warrant must be in writing .and must he made, subscribed and sworn to by a public servant ”. We hold that the statute was substantially complied with by the procedure followed. It is our view, however, that it is the better practice that, absent ■special circumstances, the application be stated in a separate writing, subscribed and sworn to. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 775, 360 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-darby-nyappdiv-1974.