People v. Long

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Long

870 N.E.2d 680, 8 N.Y.3d 1014, 839 N.Y.S.2d 441

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 12, 2007·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorándum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing in light of defendant’s failure to raise a factual dispute as to reasonable suspicion for her detention and subsequent arrest. “[T]he sufficiency of defendant’s factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426 [1993]; see also People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]). Under the circumstances of this case, defendant had ample access to relevant information regarding the factual predicate for her arrest, including access to the People’s “write-up” of her conduct which the court read to her and her counsel at arraignment. Defendant failed to specifically challenge the identified informant’s basis of knowledge in her suppression motion (cf. People v Bryant, 8 NY3d 530, 534).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorándum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing in light of defendant’s failure to raise a factual dispute as to reasonable suspicion for her detention and subsequent arrest. “[T]he sufficiency of defendant’s factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 426 [1993]; see also People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]). Under the circumstances of this case, defendant had ample access to relevant information regarding the factual predicate for her arrest, including access to the People’s “write-up” of her conduct which the court read to her and her counsel at arraignment. Defendant failed to specifically challenge the identified informant’s basis of knowledge in her suppression motion (cf. People v Bryant, 8 NY3d 530, 534).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

People v. Long, 870 N.E.2d 680, 8 N.Y.3d 1014, 839 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y. 2007).

Pincite

870 N.E.2d 680 (People v. Long) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related