People v. Gil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gil

279 A.D.2d 589, 719 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 618

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 589 (People v. Gil) 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. Gil, 279 A.D.2d 589, 719 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered September 22, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Roman, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[590]*590The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the statement made by the defendant before he was given the Miranda warnings was spontaneous and not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see, People v Winfield, 267 AD2d 486; People v Georgiou, 236 AD2d 623; People v Hylton, 198 AD2d 301; People v Garcia, 190 AD2d 749; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered September 22, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Roman, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[590]*590The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the statement made by the defendant before he was given the Miranda warnings was spontaneous and not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see, People v Winfield, 267 AD2d 486; People v Georgiou, 236 AD2d 623; People v Hylton, 198 AD2d 301; People v Garcia, 190 AD2d 749; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 589, 719 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gil-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack