People v. Jacobowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jacobowitz

89 A.D.2d 625, 452 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17731

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

DecidedJuly 26, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 625 (People v. Jacobowitz) 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. Jacobowitz, 89 A.D.2d 625, 452 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), rendered June 12, 1981, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, plea vacated, motion to suppress granted, and matter remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. The judgment must be reversed and the plea vacated because the warrant authorizing video surveillance was not executed until 17 days after issuance despite the fact that CPL 690.30 (see People v Teicher, 52 NY2d 638) requires execution within 10 days. As a consequence, the fruits of the surveillance and the "tangible property seized must be suppressed. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), rendered June 12, 1981, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, plea vacated, motion to suppress granted, and matter remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. The judgment must be reversed and the plea vacated because the warrant authorizing video surveillance was not executed until 17 days after issuance despite the fact that CPL 690.30 (see People v Teicher, 52 NY2d 638) requires execution within 10 days. As a consequence, the fruits of the surveillance and the "tangible property seized must be suppressed. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 625, 452 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jacobowitz-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack