People v. Keenan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keenan

91 A.D.2d 1049, 458 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16373

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 1049 (People v. Keenan) 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. Keenan, 91 A.D.2d 1049, 458 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Moynihan, J.), rendered June 9, 1982, convicting him, upon plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress oral and written statements. Judgment affirmed. The case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The People sustained their burden of proving that defendant’s brother had authority to permit entry into the home which he jointly occupied with defendant, that on May 16, 1981, at approximately 7:00 A.M., he voluntarily consented to the police officers’ entry into the home (People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286), and that defendant presented himself to the police officers while the arresting officer was engaged in conversation with defendant’s brother in the living room. Based upon the court’s finding of a consensual entry, supported by the record, the warrantless entry for the purpose of arresting the defendant was not within the purview of Payton v New York (445 US 573). Accordingly, we need not determine if the record supports the court’s alternative finding of attenuation, thus permitting the use of defendant’s signed statement which conformed to Huntley-Miranda requirements. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Moynihan, J.), rendered June 9, 1982, convicting him, upon plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress oral and written statements. Judgment affirmed. The case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The People sustained their burden of proving that defendant’s brother had authority to permit entry into the home which he jointly occupied with defendant, that on May 16, 1981, at approximately 7:00 A.M., he voluntarily consented to the police officers’ entry into the home (People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286), and that defendant presented himself to the police officers while the arresting officer was engaged in conversation with defendant’s brother in the living room. Based upon the court’s finding of a consensual entry, supported by the record, the warrantless entry for the purpose of arresting the defendant was not within the purview of Payton v New York (445 US 573). Accordingly, we need not determine if the record supports the court’s alternative finding of attenuation, thus permitting the use of defendant’s signed statement which conformed to Huntley-Miranda requirements. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 1049, 458 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keenan-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack