People v. Gentile

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Gentile

350 N.E.2d 615, 39 N.Y.2d 779, 385 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2728

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 350 N.E.2d 615 (People v. Gentile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Gentile, 350 N.E.2d 615, 39 N.Y.2d 779, 385 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2728 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After being granted what is now conceded to be appropriate immunity defendant refused to answer questions put to him by a Grand Jury solely on the assertion of his constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Having thereafter been convicted of criminal contempt, defendant now contends that his conviction must be reversed on the ground that the Grand Jury questioning was based on information derived from unauthorized electronic eavesdropping. Since defendant’s refusal to answer questions was not predicated at the time on this contention it does not avail him to raise the issue now. (People v Breindel, 73 Misc 2d 734, affd 45 AD2d 691, affd 35 NY2d 928; cf. People v Einhorn, 35 NY2d 948.)

We have examined defendant’s other contentions, including [781]*781those based on the provisions of CPL 700.50 and 700.70, and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After being granted what is now conceded to be appropriate immunity defendant refused to answer questions put to him by a Grand Jury solely on the assertion of his constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Having thereafter been convicted of criminal contempt, defendant now contends that his conviction must be reversed on the ground that the Grand Jury questioning was based on information derived from unauthorized electronic eavesdropping. Since defendant’s refusal to answer questions was not predicated at the time on this contention it does not avail him to raise the issue now. (People v Breindel, 73 Misc 2d 734, affd 45 AD2d 691, affd 35 NY2d 928; cf. People v Einhorn, 35 NY2d 948.)

We have examined defendant’s other contentions, including [781]*781those based on the provisions of CPL 700.50 and 700.70, and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 N.E.2d 615, 39 N.Y.2d 779, 385 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gentile-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack