People v. Kemp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kemp

262 A.D.2d 333, 689 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5848

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 333 (People v. Kemp) 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. Kemp, 262 A.D.2d 333, 689 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered April 10, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing (Starkey, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the conclusory language in the defendant’s moving papers failed “to allege facts sufficient to support a legal basis for the branch of his motion in question” (People v Chavous, 204 AD2d 475, 476; see also, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 425-429). Accordingly, the suppression court’s summary denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress was proper (People v Chavous, supra; People v Mendoza, supra). Bracken, J. P„, S. Miller, Thompson and Sullivan, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered April 10, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing (Starkey, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the conclusory language in the defendant’s moving papers failed “to allege facts sufficient to support a legal basis for the branch of his motion in question” (People v Chavous, 204 AD2d 475, 476; see also, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 425-429). Accordingly, the suppression court’s summary denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress was proper (People v Chavous, supra; People v Mendoza, supra). Bracken, J. P„, S. Miller, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 333, 689 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kemp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack