People v. Lovejoy

197 A.D.2d 353, 602 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9009
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 5, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 353 (People v. Lovejoy) 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. Lovejoy, 197 A.D.2d 353, 602 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered January 10, 1990, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 Vi to 15 years on each count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s allegations in support of his suppression motions conceded that he and a toy gun were seized by hotel security guards who "displayed” defendant to the complainant. The acts of private security guards do not constitute government activity subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny (see, People v Jones, 47 NY2d 528, 533). Contrary to defendant’s argument, the clearly speculative allegations set forth in his moving papers, that the private security guards in question are "licensed peace officers or are working under the [354]*354direction and control of a licensed peace officer” (refuted by the People’s response), did not meet the statutory requirement of sufficient sworn allegations of "fact” to support the granting of a hearing (CPL 710.60 [1]; People v Holder, 149 AD2d 325, 326, lv denied 74 NY2d 794). Additionally, defendant conceded in his moving papers that a nylon bag, with contents, was "seized from a nearby location”, and offered no factual allegations that the bag and its contents belonged to him. Thus, defendant failed to set forth any allegations even suggesting standing to support the granting of a suppression hearing with respect to the bag and its contents (CPL 710.60 [3] [a]).

We have considered defendant’s additional pro se arguments and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Uriel M.
2004 NY Slip Op 50849(U) (Queens Family Court, 2004)
People v. Adams
246 A.D.2d 315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Martin
240 A.D.2d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Cook
168 Misc. 2d 256 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
People v. Mendoza
211 A.D.2d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 A.D.2d 353, 602 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lovejoy-nyappdiv-1993.