People v. Madlock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Madlock

149 A.D.2d 915, 543 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5903

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 915 (People v. Madlock) 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. Madlock, 149 A.D.2d 915, 543 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for a hearing, in accordance with the following memorandum: The trial court erred in summarily denying that portion of defendant’s suppression motion that requested a hearing pursuant to Dunaway v New York (442 US 200). Though unartfully drafted, defendant’s moving papers sufficiently complied with CPL 710.60 (1) by raising an issue of fact supporting his allegation that his showup identification should be suppressed because it was the result of his illegal arrest (see, People v Shippens, 123 AD2d 502; People v Vitetta, 118 AD2d 885, 886; People v Williams, 46 AD2d 727). The court is therefore directed to conduct a Dunaway hearing and report to this court upon completion of the hearing (see, People v Shippens, supra; People v De Vaughn, 81 AD2d 924).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.— robbery, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for a hearing, in accordance with the following memorandum: The trial court erred in summarily denying that portion of defendant’s suppression motion that requested a hearing pursuant to Dunaway v New York (442 US 200). Though unartfully drafted, defendant’s moving papers sufficiently complied with CPL 710.60 (1) by raising an issue of fact supporting his allegation that his showup identification should be suppressed because it was the result of his illegal arrest (see, People v Shippens, 123 AD2d 502; People v Vitetta, 118 AD2d 885, 886; People v Williams, 46 AD2d 727). The court is therefore directed to conduct a Dunaway hearing and report to this court upon completion of the hearing (see, People v Shippens, supra; People v De Vaughn, 81 AD2d 924).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.— robbery, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 915, 543 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-madlock-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack