People v. Marletti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marletti

106 A.D.2d 406, 482 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21439

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 406 (People v. Marletti) 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. Marletti, 106 A.D.2d 406, 482 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), rendered March 9, 1982, convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The stop of the automobile defendant was driving, along with the seizure of the gun which was in open view, was reasonable and proper (People v Singleton, 50 AD2d 939, affd 41 NY2d 402). Moreover, the statements defendant made were in response to legitimate, on-the-scene questioning and were not the product of custodial interrogation and thus were properly admitted into evidence (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 477-478). Defendant’s other contentions are either unpreserved or without merit. Ti-tone, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), rendered March 9, 1982, convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The stop of the automobile defendant was driving, along with the seizure of the gun which was in open view, was reasonable and proper (People v Singleton, 50 AD2d 939, affd 41 NY2d 402). Moreover, the statements defendant made were in response to legitimate, on-the-scene questioning and were not the product of custodial interrogation and thus were properly admitted into evidence (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 477-478). Defendant’s other contentions are either unpreserved or without merit. Ti-tone, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 406, 482 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marletti-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack