People v. Lagreca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lagreca

221 A.D.2d 1026, 634 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13616

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 1026 (People v. Lagreca) 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. Lagreca, 221 A.D.2d 1026, 634 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied the motion to suppress defendant’s statements to the arresting officer. That officer’s questioning of defendant about his identity, the reason for the stop and whether he had been drinking was investigatory, not custodial, interrogation (see, People v Hennigan, 135 AD2d 1082, 1083; People v Brown, 104 AD2d 696, 697). Defendant’s contention that the court erred in charging the jury on the elements of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree has not been preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.—Driving With Ability Impaired.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied the motion to suppress defendant’s statements to the arresting officer. That officer’s questioning of defendant about his identity, the reason for the stop and whether he had been drinking was investigatory, not custodial, interrogation (see, People v Hennigan, 135 AD2d 1082, 1083; People v Brown, 104 AD2d 696, 697). Defendant’s contention that the court erred in charging the jury on the elements of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree has not been preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.—Driving With Ability Impaired.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 1026, 634 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lagreca-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack