People v. Fitzpatrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fitzpatrick

67 A.D.2d 931, 413 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10697

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 931 (People v. Fitzpatrick) 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. Fitzpatrick, 67 A.D.2d 931, 413 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 7, 1977, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree and possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, there was probable cause for the defendant’s detention on September 14, 1976. Consequently, there is no basis for the claim that his confession and incriminating oral statements of that day should have been suppressed because they were the "fruit” of an unlawful arrest (see, generally, Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590). We have examined the defendant’s other contentions and find that they are without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

— Defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 7, 1977, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree and possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, there was probable cause for the defendant’s detention on September 14, 1976. Consequently, there is no basis for the claim that his confession and incriminating oral statements of that day should have been suppressed because they were the "fruit” of an unlawful arrest (see, generally, Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590). We have examined the defendant’s other contentions and find that they are without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 931, 413 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fitzpatrick-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack