People v. Kunz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kunz

48 A.D.3d 1075, 849 N.Y.S.2d 838

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 1, 2008·Published

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell E Buscaglia, A.J.), entered March 21, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress physical evidence.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and the indictment is dismissed.

Memorandum: On this appeal by the People, we conclude that Supreme Court properly suppressed evidence seized by the police during a warrantless search of defendant’s residence. As the court properly determined, the People failed to establish by the requisite preponderance of the evidence that the independent contractor hired by a bank to secure the property in anticipation of a foreclosure sale had actual or apparent authority to consent to the search of defendant’s residence (see People v Gonzalez, 88 NY2d 289, 295 [1996]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ. [See 16 Misc 3d 312 (2007).]

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell E Buscaglia, A.J.), entered March 21, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress physical evidence.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and the indictment is dismissed.

Memorandum: On this appeal by the People, we conclude that Supreme Court properly suppressed evidence seized by the police during a warrantless search of defendant’s residence. As the court properly determined, the People failed to establish by the requisite preponderance of the evidence that the independent contractor hired by a bank to secure the property in anticipation of a foreclosure sale had actual or apparent authority to consent to the search of defendant’s residence (see People v Gonzalez, 88 NY2d 289, 295 [1996]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ. [See 16 Misc 3d 312 (2007).]

People v. Kunz, 48 A.D.3d 1075, 849 N.Y.S.2d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

48 A.D.3d 1075 (People v. Kunz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related