People v. Fedora

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fedora

152 A.D.2d 975, 544 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Fedora) 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. Fedora, 152 A.D.2d 975, 544 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion to suppress his inculpatory statement on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his right to counsel was properly denied. Defendant testified that he had retained counsel and had told Investigator Eisenhauer that he had retained counsel prior to making the inculpatory statement. Defendant’s self-serving testimony was inconsistent and contradictory and was not supported by the testimony of defendant’s father or attorney. The court refused to credit the testimony, as it was entitled to do, and that determination is supported by the record (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 588, cert denied 400 US 851). The statement of defendant’s father to defendant, "We’d better get in touch with a lawyer”, made in the noncustodial setting of their home, did not result in the "indelible attachment of the right to counsel” (People v Hartley, 65 NY2d 703, 705; People v Rowell, 59 NY2d 727, 730). (Appeal from judgment of Jeffer[976]*976son County Court, Aylward, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion to suppress his inculpatory statement on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his right to counsel was properly denied. Defendant testified that he had retained counsel and had told Investigator Eisenhauer that he had retained counsel prior to making the inculpatory statement. Defendant’s self-serving testimony was inconsistent and contradictory and was not supported by the testimony of defendant’s father or attorney. The court refused to credit the testimony, as it was entitled to do, and that determination is supported by the record (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 588, cert denied 400 US 851). The statement of defendant’s father to defendant, "We’d better get in touch with a lawyer”, made in the noncustodial setting of their home, did not result in the "indelible attachment of the right to counsel” (People v Hartley, 65 NY2d 703, 705; People v Rowell, 59 NY2d 727, 730). (Appeal from judgment of Jeffer[976]*976son County Court, Aylward, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 975, 544 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fedora-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack