People v. Marner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marner

64 A.D.2d 640, 406 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12438

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 640 (People v. Marner) 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. Marner, 64 A.D.2d 640, 406 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 16, 1977, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law, motion to suppress physical evidence granted, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. The initial "seizure” of defendant’s vehicle was unwarranted (see People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413). Criminal Term was in error in equating the stop of defendant’s vehicle with the exercise of the common-law right of inquiry of a pedestrian, discussed in the majority opinion in People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210) (see People v Sobotker, supra, p 563). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 16, 1977, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law, motion to suppress physical evidence granted, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. The initial "seizure” of defendant’s vehicle was unwarranted (see People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413). Criminal Term was in error in equating the stop of defendant’s vehicle with the exercise of the common-law right of inquiry of a pedestrian, discussed in the majority opinion in People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210) (see People v Sobotker, supra, p 563). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 640, 406 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marner-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack