People v. Hardgers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardgers

222 A.D.2d 1038, 636 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14089

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1038 (People v. Hardgers) 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. Hardgers, 222 A.D.2d 1038, 636 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of justification; no reasonable view of the evidence established the elements of the defense (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816). Defendant contends that the court should have suppressed the gun because his sister lacked authority to consent to the search. We disagree. Here, the "searching officers rel[ied] in good faith on the apparent capability of [defendant’s sixteen-year-old sister] to consent to a search and the circumstances reasonably indicate[d] that [she did], in fact, have the authority to consent” (People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1, 9, rearg denied 54 NY2d 832, cert denied 454 US 854; see, People v Bostic [appeal No. 1], 222 AD2d 1073 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of justification; no reasonable view of the evidence established the elements of the defense (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816). Defendant contends that the court should have suppressed the gun because his sister lacked authority to consent to the search. We disagree. Here, the "searching officers rel[ied] in good faith on the apparent capability of [defendant’s sixteen-year-old sister] to consent to a search and the circumstances reasonably indicate[d] that [she did], in fact, have the authority to consent” (People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1, 9, rearg denied 54 NY2d 832, cert denied 454 US 854; see, People v Bostic [appeal No. 1], 222 AD2d 1073 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1038, 636 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardgers-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack