People v. Knighton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Knighton

202 A.D.2d 1022, 610 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3400

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1022 (People v. Knighton) 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. Knighton, 202 A.D.2d 1022, 610 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

-^Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We have reviewed both the sworn warrant application of the police officers and the information given by the sworn informant to the issuing Magistrate and find that they were sufficient to support the issuance of the warrant (see, People v Sullivan, 56 NY2d 378, 384; People v Peterson, 159 AD2d 983, lv denied 76 NY2d 794). We find no error in County Court’s consideration of the information provided by the sworn informant to the issuing Magistrate and the court’s refusal to disclose that information to defendant (see, People v Franco, 167 AD2d 957; People v Diaz, 147 AD2d 912, lv denied 73 NY2d 1014; People v Delgado, 134 AD2d 951, lv denied 71 NY2d 895). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

-^Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We have reviewed both the sworn warrant application of the police officers and the information given by the sworn informant to the issuing Magistrate and find that they were sufficient to support the issuance of the warrant (see, People v Sullivan, 56 NY2d 378, 384; People v Peterson, 159 AD2d 983, lv denied 76 NY2d 794). We find no error in County Court’s consideration of the information provided by the sworn informant to the issuing Magistrate and the court’s refusal to disclose that information to defendant (see, People v Franco, 167 AD2d 957; People v Diaz, 147 AD2d 912, lv denied 73 NY2d 1014; People v Delgado, 134 AD2d 951, lv denied 71 NY2d 895). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1022, 610 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-knighton-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack