People v. Delaney

121 A.D.2d 650, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58637
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 650 (People v. Delaney) 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. Delaney, 121 A.D.2d 650, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), rendered May 19, [651]*6511982, convicting him of rape in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (two counts), and unauthorized use of vehicle, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of (1) that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought the suppression of certain evidence seized incident to his arrest, and (2) the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People failed to comply with CPL 580.20.

Judgment affirmed.

After excluding the periods of delay caused by the resolution of the defendant’s motions and continuances requested by the defendant and excluding those periods when the defendant himself was not ready for trial, the County Court correctly concluded that the People had brought the defendant to trial within the 120-day period required by CPL 580.20 article IV (c) (see, People v Torres, 60 NY2d 119; People v Lambert, 92 AD2d 550, affd 61 NY2d 978; People v Rivera, 84 AD2d 541).

The defendant has failed to sustain his burden of showing that his arrest was illegal because it was effectuated without a warrant. The credible evidence adduced at the pretrial hearing showed that he was arrested in another person’s apartment and he failed to show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in those premises (see, People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160; People v Farinaro, 110 AD2d 653).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and have determined that they are without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Reid
164 Misc. 2d 1032 (New York County Courts, 1995)
People v. Harden
151 A.D.2d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Martin
135 A.D.2d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.2d 650, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delaney-nyappdiv-1986.