People v. Eske

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eske

190 A.D.2d 816

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 816 (People v. Eske) 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. Eske, 190 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), rendered September 12, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements made to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the court erred in admitting certain statements because there was not a pronounced break between those statements and the tainted statements which were ruled inadmissible. However, the defendant’s contention is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029; People v Smith, 158 AD2d 488) and we decline to address the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), rendered September 12, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements made to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the court erred in admitting certain statements because there was not a pronounced break between those statements and the tainted statements which were ruled inadmissible. However, the defendant’s contention is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029; People v Smith, 158 AD2d 488) and we decline to address the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eske-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack