People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martinez

246 A.D.2d 456, 667 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 619

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 456 (People v. Martinez) 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. Martinez, 246 A.D.2d 456, 667 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed.

According due deference to the hearing court’s findings of fact and credibility, there is no basis for disturbing the court’s [457]*457determination that the stop in this case was pretextual (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761-762). The court’s application of a subjective test for determination of the legality of the stop is in accordance with previous decisions of this Court (see, e.g., People v Rijo, 220 AD2d 217, lv denied 88 NY2d 852; People v Laws, 213 AD2d 226, lv denied 85 NY2d 975). The holding of the United States Supreme Court in Whren v United States (517 US 806) does not compel a contrary result (see, People v Scott, 79 NY2d 474, 496-497). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed.

According due deference to the hearing court’s findings of fact and credibility, there is no basis for disturbing the court’s [457]*457determination that the stop in this case was pretextual (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761-762). The court’s application of a subjective test for determination of the legality of the stop is in accordance with previous decisions of this Court (see, e.g., People v Rijo, 220 AD2d 217, lv denied 88 NY2d 852; People v Laws, 213 AD2d 226, lv denied 85 NY2d 975). The holding of the United States Supreme Court in Whren v United States (517 US 806) does not compel a contrary result (see, People v Scott, 79 NY2d 474, 496-497). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 456, 667 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martinez-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack