People v. Durden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Durden

119 A.D.2d 766, 501 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55695

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 21, 1986·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), entered October 27, 1982, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for the suppression of physical evidence.

[767] Order affirmed.

As he was entering his apartment, the defendant was identified by the complainant as the man who had threatened him with a gun earlier that evening. One of the two officers who accompanied the complainant held the defendant, while the other officer went into the apartment and seized a gun on top of a refrigerator inside of the apartment. The defendant was then arrested.

The warrantless search of the apartment was not justified either as incident to the defendant’s arrest at the entrance to his apartment (see, People v Fields, 45 NY2d 986), or by exigent circumstances (see, Matter of Kwok T., 43 NY2d 213). Accordingly, the gun was properly suppressed. Niehoff, J. R, Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), entered October 27, 1982, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for the suppression of physical evidence.

[767] Order affirmed.

As he was entering his apartment, the defendant was identified by the complainant as the man who had threatened him with a gun earlier that evening. One of the two officers who accompanied the complainant held the defendant, while the other officer went into the apartment and seized a gun on top of a refrigerator inside of the apartment. The defendant was then arrested.

The warrantless search of the apartment was not justified either as incident to the defendant’s arrest at the entrance to his apartment (see, People v Fields, 45 NY2d 986), or by exigent circumstances (see, Matter of Kwok T., 43 NY2d 213). Accordingly, the gun was properly suppressed. Niehoff, J. R, Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

People v. Durden, 119 A.D.2d 766, 501 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

119 A.D.2d 766 (People v. Durden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related