People v. Mateos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mateos

255 A.D.2d 401, 679 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11762

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 401 (People v. Mateos) 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. Mateos, 255 A.D.2d 401, 679 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered April 24, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court correctly determined that the warrantless entry by the police into his apartment was justified under the emergency doctrine (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, cert denied 426 US 953; People v Hodge, 44 NY2d 553; People v Taper, 105 AD2d 813). The hearing court was also correct in finding that even if the warrantless entry were not so justified, suppression was not required because the defendant voluntarily consented to it (see, People v Smith, 239 AD2d 219; People v Brown, 234 AD2d 211, affd 91 NY2d 854; People v Gonzalez, 222 AD2d 453; People v Washington, 209 AD2d 817; People v Satornino, 153 AD2d 595). Consequently, those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress both physical evidence and his statements were properly denied. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, 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 (Tomei, J.), rendered April 24, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court correctly determined that the warrantless entry by the police into his apartment was justified under the emergency doctrine (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, cert denied 426 US 953; People v Hodge, 44 NY2d 553; People v Taper, 105 AD2d 813). The hearing court was also correct in finding that even if the warrantless entry were not so justified, suppression was not required because the defendant voluntarily consented to it (see, People v Smith, 239 AD2d 219; People v Brown, 234 AD2d 211, affd 91 NY2d 854; People v Gonzalez, 222 AD2d 453; People v Washington, 209 AD2d 817; People v Satornino, 153 AD2d 595). Consequently, those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress both physical evidence and his statements were properly denied. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 401, 679 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mateos-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack