People v. Frange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frange

109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47301

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 802 (People v. Frange) 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. Frange, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ryan, J.), rendered November 30,1981, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree and criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, after a.nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the detective’s application for a search warrant provided sufficient information to support the issuing magistrate’s determination that there was probable cause to believe marihuana would be found on the premises of the pizzeria where defendant was employed (see, Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213; People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549; People v Marinetti, 100 AD2d 597). Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that the 13-day [803]*803period, which elapsed between the date the search warrant was executed and the date it was returned to the court constituted “unnecessary delay” within the meaning of CPL 690.30 (1), the requirement that the warrant be returned in a timely manner is a ministerial duty, noncompliance with which cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise valid warrant (see, People v Davis, 93 AD2d 970; People v Ciccarelli, 104 Misc 2d 287). Thus, defendant’s motion to controvert the warrant which authorized a search of the pizzeria was properly denied.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ryan, J.), rendered November 30,1981, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree and criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, after a.nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the detective’s application for a search warrant provided sufficient information to support the issuing magistrate’s determination that there was probable cause to believe marihuana would be found on the premises of the pizzeria where defendant was employed (see, Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213; People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549; People v Marinetti, 100 AD2d 597). Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that the 13-day [803]*803period, which elapsed between the date the search warrant was executed and the date it was returned to the court constituted “unnecessary delay” within the meaning of CPL 690.30 (1), the requirement that the warrant be returned in a timely manner is a ministerial duty, noncompliance with which cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise valid warrant (see, People v Davis, 93 AD2d 970; People v Ciccarelli, 104 Misc 2d 287). Thus, defendant’s motion to controvert the warrant which authorized a search of the pizzeria was properly denied.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frange-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack