People v. Jonas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jonas

33 A.D.2d 831, 305 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2712

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 831 (People v. Jonas) 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. Jonas, 33 A.D.2d 831, 305 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Clinton 'County, convicting appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a dangerous drug, fourth degree. Appellant here seeks review of an order of the court denying his motion to suppress certain evidence after a hearing. The search warrant upon which the search here involved was conducted was issued on the basis of an affidavit which in turn is based solely on information supplied by a confidential informer. Appellant urges that the trial court should have required that the prosecution disclose the name of this informer, citing People v. Malinshy (15 N Y 2d 86). Malinshy is also applicable here where the search is conducted pursuant to a search warrant (People v. Cerrato, 24 N Y 2d 1) and we find its requirements not met on the present posture of the ease (see People v. Cerrato, supra, p. 7; People v. Verrecchio, 23 N Y 2d 489, 492-93; People v. White,' 16 N Y 2d 270, 273, cert. den. 386 U. S. 1008; People v. Malinshy, supra, p. 93). There is “no independent corroboration of the fact of the informer’s existence or of his informing, nor was there, prior to the arrest [s], any separate cheeking out of the principal elements of the informer’s story or even any dependable proof of the accuracy of his information.” (People v. Malinshy, supra, p. 94.) This is equally true as to that portion of the supporting affidavit which deals with the movement of the drugs to the Keeseville apartment. The People may, however, be able to cure this deficiency and accordingly the determination in this appeal should be withheld and the case remitted to the County Court for a further hearing •on the motion to suppress in accordance with this opinion. We do not at this time pass on any other contention raised by appellant. Determination withheld and case remitted to the 'County Court, Clinton County, for a further hearing on the motion to suppress in accordance with this memorandum. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J. P.

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

Reynolds, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Clinton 'County, convicting appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a dangerous drug, fourth degree. Appellant here seeks review of an order of the court denying his motion to suppress certain evidence after a hearing. The search warrant upon which the search here involved was conducted was issued on the basis of an affidavit which in turn is based solely on information supplied by a confidential informer. Appellant urges that the trial court should have required that the prosecution disclose the name of this informer, citing People v. Malinshy (15 N Y 2d 86). Malinshy is also applicable here where the search is conducted pursuant to a search warrant (People v. Cerrato, 24 N Y 2d 1) and we find its requirements not met on the present posture of the ease (see People v. Cerrato, supra, p. 7; People v. Verrecchio, 23 N Y 2d 489, 492-93; People v. White,' 16 N Y 2d 270, 273, cert. den. 386 U. S. 1008; People v. Malinshy, supra, p. 93). There is “no independent corroboration of the fact of the informer’s existence or of his informing, nor was there, prior to the arrest [s], any separate cheeking out of the principal elements of the informer’s story or even any dependable proof of the accuracy of his information.” (People v. Malinshy, supra, p. 94.) This is equally true as to that portion of the supporting affidavit which deals with the movement of the drugs to the Keeseville apartment. The People may, however, be able to cure this deficiency and accordingly the determination in this appeal should be withheld and the case remitted to the County Court for a further hearing •on the motion to suppress in accordance with this opinion. We do not at this time pass on any other contention raised by appellant. Determination withheld and case remitted to the 'County Court, Clinton County, for a further hearing on the motion to suppress in accordance with this memorandum. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J. P.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 831, 305 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jonas-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack