People v. Isenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Isenberg

188 A.D.2d 1042, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14902

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 1042 (People v. Isenberg) 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. Isenberg, 188 A.D.2d 1042, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, motion granted and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: County Court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The sketchy details provided in the handwritten statement signed by the confidential informant did not constitute a summary of the informant’s examination by the issuing Magistrate "recorded or summarized on the record by the court” (CPL 690.40 [1]). Because we conclude there was not substantial compliance with CPL 690.40, the evidence discovered during the search authorized by the defective warrant must be suppressed (see, People v Taylor, 73 NY2d 683, 690).

[1043]*1043In view of our determination, we do not reach defendant’s other contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J., trial; Erie County Court, Drury, J., suppression hearing — Criminal Possession Marihuana, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, motion granted and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: County Court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The sketchy details provided in the handwritten statement signed by the confidential informant did not constitute a summary of the informant’s examination by the issuing Magistrate "recorded or summarized on the record by the court” (CPL 690.40 [1]). Because we conclude there was not substantial compliance with CPL 690.40, the evidence discovered during the search authorized by the defective warrant must be suppressed (see, People v Taylor, 73 NY2d 683, 690).

[1043]*1043In view of our determination, we do not reach defendant’s other contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J., trial; Erie County Court, Drury, J., suppression hearing — Criminal Possession Marihuana, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 1042, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-isenberg-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack