People v. Machlovitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Machlovitz

57 Misc. 2d 912, 293 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1217

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 6, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Misc. 2d 912 (People v. Machlovitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Machlovitz, 57 Misc. 2d 912, 293 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The People having failed to establish the

reliability of the informant, probable cause for the issuance of the wiretap order was lacking and the evidence obtained from this source was inadmissible (People v. Kaiser, 21 N Y 2d 86; People v. Horowitz, 21 N Y 2d 55; People v. McCall, 17 N Y 2d 152). While there was other evidence in the record which may have been derived from a source independent of the illegal wiretap and may have been sufficient to convict, the tapes played in the presence of the jury contained prejudicial admissions. Under these circumstances, defendants are entitled to a new trial.

The judgments of conviction should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial ordered.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The People having failed to establish the

reliability of the informant, probable cause for the issuance of the wiretap order was lacking and the evidence obtained from this source was inadmissible (People v. Kaiser, 21 N Y 2d 86; People v. Horowitz, 21 N Y 2d 55; People v. McCall, 17 N Y 2d 152). While there was other evidence in the record which may have been derived from a source independent of the illegal wiretap and may have been sufficient to convict, the tapes played in the presence of the jury contained prejudicial admissions. Under these circumstances, defendants are entitled to a new trial.

The judgments of conviction should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial ordered.

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Misc. 2d 912, 293 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-machlovitz-nyappterm-1968.