People v. Khan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Khan

265 A.D.2d 167, 696 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9723

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 167 (People v. Khan) 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. Khan, 265 A.D.2d 167, 696 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J., at suppression hearing; Bernard Fried, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 25, 1998, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied in all respects. Contrary to defendant’s argument, there was no evidence that the police intentionally deprived defendant of access to his family in an effort to bar his exercise of his right to counsel and to obtain a confession (see, People v Fuschino, 59 [168]*168NY2d 91, 100). The record also supports the court’s findings with respect to defendant’s ability to understand English (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J., at suppression hearing; Bernard Fried, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 25, 1998, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied in all respects. Contrary to defendant’s argument, there was no evidence that the police intentionally deprived defendant of access to his family in an effort to bar his exercise of his right to counsel and to obtain a confession (see, People v Fuschino, 59 [168]*168NY2d 91, 100). The record also supports the court’s findings with respect to defendant’s ability to understand English (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 167, 696 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-khan-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack