People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mack

281 A.D.2d 194, 721 N.Y.S.2d 528, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2209

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J., on suppression motion; John Stackhouse, J., at nonjury trial and sentence), rendered June 5, 1998, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s summary denial of defendant’s suppression motion was proper. Reading defendant’s motion papers as a whole, as defendant asks this Court to do, we conclude that defendant conceded that he was arrested on the basis of a complaint by an identified citizen-witness who spoke from personal know![195] edge (see, People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 349-350). Defendant’s assertion that the complainant’s version of the incident was untruthful did not raise a factual issue as to probable cause, since it did not go to the sufficiency of the information possessed by the police (compare, People v Hightower, 85 NY2d 988).

As to the evidence challenged by defendant as hearsay, we find that it could not have affected the verdict (see, People v Maher, 89 NY2d 456, 462), particularly since this was a non-jury trial (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J., on suppression motion; John Stackhouse, J., at nonjury trial and sentence), rendered June 5, 1998, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s summary denial of defendant’s suppression motion was proper. Reading defendant’s motion papers as a whole, as defendant asks this Court to do, we conclude that defendant conceded that he was arrested on the basis of a complaint by an identified citizen-witness who spoke from personal know![195] edge (see, People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 349-350). Defendant’s assertion that the complainant’s version of the incident was untruthful did not raise a factual issue as to probable cause, since it did not go to the sufficiency of the information possessed by the police (compare, People v Hightower, 85 NY2d 988).

As to the evidence challenged by defendant as hearsay, we find that it could not have affected the verdict (see, People v Maher, 89 NY2d 456, 462), particularly since this was a non-jury trial (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

People v. Mack, 281 A.D.2d 194, 721 N.Y.S.2d 528, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 194 (People v. Mack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related