People v. Galler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Galler

74 A.D.2d 613, 424 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10261

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 613 (People v. Galler) 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. Galler, 74 A.D.2d 613, 424 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 17, 1979, which, after a hearing, granted defendants’ motion to suppress certain physical evidence. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting therefrom the provision which granted the motion to suppress as to defendant Rudy Vasquez and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion as to him. As so modified, order affirmed. We agree with Criminal Term insofar as it determined that the investigators lacked probable cause to arrest defendant Galler and search the van he was driving (see People v Vassallo, 46 AD2d 781; People v Monforte, 57 AD2d 576). We disagree with Criminal Term’s finding that the People failed to show that defendant Vasquez knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his apartment. It clearly appears from the record that his consent was voluntary and was not induced by overbearing official conduct (see People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122). Accordingly, the motion to suppress as to defendant Vasquez should be denied. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gulotta, 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, dated April 17, 1979, which, after a hearing, granted defendants’ motion to suppress certain physical evidence. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting therefrom the provision which granted the motion to suppress as to defendant Rudy Vasquez and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion as to him. As so modified, order affirmed. We agree with Criminal Term insofar as it determined that the investigators lacked probable cause to arrest defendant Galler and search the van he was driving (see People v Vassallo, 46 AD2d 781; People v Monforte, 57 AD2d 576). We disagree with Criminal Term’s finding that the People failed to show that defendant Vasquez knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his apartment. It clearly appears from the record that his consent was voluntary and was not induced by overbearing official conduct (see People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122). Accordingly, the motion to suppress as to defendant Vasquez should be denied. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 613, 424 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-galler-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack