People v. Dimauro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dimauro

158 A.D.2d 536, 551 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1726

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A.D.2d 536 (People v. Dimauro) 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. Dimauro, 158 A.D.2d 536, 551 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The record demonstrates that, in response to inquiries from the court and the prosecutor, the defendant repeatedly and unequivocally agreed to waive his statutory right to seek appellate review of the denial of his suppression motion as a condition of his plea bargain. Inasmuch as such a waiver has long been recognized as an acceptable condition of a plea bargain (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Williams, 36 NY2d 829, cert denied 423 US 873; People v Bray, 154 [537]*537AD2d 692), and the record overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the waiver in this case was knowingly and voluntarily made (see, e.g., People v Seaberg, supra; People v Roberts, 152 AD2d 678; People v Cerce, 137 AD2d 542), we find that the defendant may properly be held to his waiver. Accordingly, we do not address the merits of the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Mollen, P. J., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

The record demonstrates that, in response to inquiries from the court and the prosecutor, the defendant repeatedly and unequivocally agreed to waive his statutory right to seek appellate review of the denial of his suppression motion as a condition of his plea bargain. Inasmuch as such a waiver has long been recognized as an acceptable condition of a plea bargain (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Williams, 36 NY2d 829, cert denied 423 US 873; People v Bray, 154 [537]*537AD2d 692), and the record overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the waiver in this case was knowingly and voluntarily made (see, e.g., People v Seaberg, supra; People v Roberts, 152 AD2d 678; People v Cerce, 137 AD2d 542), we find that the defendant may properly be held to his waiver. Accordingly, we do not address the merits of the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. Mollen, P. J., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 536, 551 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dimauro-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack