People v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jordan

231 A.D.2d 646, 647 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9436

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 646 (People v. Jordan) 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. Jordan, 231 A.D.2d 646, 647 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), rendered December 2, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those [647]*647branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing. Since the defendant did not present any additional, pertinent evidence warranting the reopening of the suppression hearing (see, CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894; People v Graham, 120 AD2d 674; see also, People v Lee, 216 AD2d 326), the motion was properly denied. The "additional facts” relied upon by the defendant were within his knowledge at the time of the first hearing and, thus, did not constitute newly-discovered evidence (see, CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Adams, 224 AD2d 433; People v Accardi, 222 AD2d 596; People v Toxey, 220 AD2d 204; People v Mitchell-Benetiz, 168 AD2d 994).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Hart and McGinity, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), rendered December 2, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those [647]*647branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing. Since the defendant did not present any additional, pertinent evidence warranting the reopening of the suppression hearing (see, CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894; People v Graham, 120 AD2d 674; see also, People v Lee, 216 AD2d 326), the motion was properly denied. The "additional facts” relied upon by the defendant were within his knowledge at the time of the first hearing and, thus, did not constitute newly-discovered evidence (see, CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Adams, 224 AD2d 433; People v Accardi, 222 AD2d 596; People v Toxey, 220 AD2d 204; People v Mitchell-Benetiz, 168 AD2d 994).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Hart and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 646, 647 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jordan-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack