People v. Jose

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Jose

724 N.E.2d 366, 94 N.Y.2d 844, 702 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3924

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 16, 1999·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determination whether defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy involved a mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, there exists record support for the Appellate Division’s determination of this mixed question, the issue is beyond this Court’s further review (see, e.g., People v Ortiz, 83 NY2d 840, 843).

*846 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determination whether defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy involved a mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, there exists record support for the Appellate Division’s determination of this mixed question, the issue is beyond this Court’s further review (see, e.g., People v Ortiz, 83 NY2d 840, 843).

*846 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

People v. Jose, 724 N.E.2d 366, 94 N.Y.2d 844, 702 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3924 (N.Y. 1999).

Pincite

724 N.E.2d 366 (People v. Jose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related