People v. Matkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Matkowski

67 A.D.2d 1087, 415 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 1087 (People v. Matkowski) 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. Matkowski, 67 A.D.2d 1087, 415 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The Labor Department investigator was not required to give Miranda warnings before interviewing the defendant for unlawfully receiving unemployment insurance benefits during a time when he was gainfully employed. Even though the department’s investigation had been completed and the clear purpose of its interrogation of defendant in its local office was to obtain his admission of guilt, defendant was not in custody and his freedom of action was not curtailed (Beckwith v United States, 425 US 341; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585; People v Rodney P., 21 NY2d 1). Defendant’s admission of guilt was not the product of coercion and his statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35; CPL 60.45). In view of this determination it is unnecessary to address the separate question of whether an investigator for the Labor Department, whose job is to investigate fraud, is a law enforcement officer within the meaning of CPL 60.45 (subd 2, par [b]). (Appeal from judgment of Wayne County Court — grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Witmer and Moule, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The Labor Department investigator was not required to give Miranda warnings before interviewing the defendant for unlawfully receiving unemployment insurance benefits during a time when he was gainfully employed. Even though the department’s investigation had been completed and the clear purpose of its interrogation of defendant in its local office was to obtain his admission of guilt, defendant was not in custody and his freedom of action was not curtailed (Beckwith v United States, 425 US 341; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585; People v Rodney P., 21 NY2d 1). Defendant’s admission of guilt was not the product of coercion and his statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35; CPL 60.45). In view of this determination it is unnecessary to address the separate question of whether an investigator for the Labor Department, whose job is to investigate fraud, is a law enforcement officer within the meaning of CPL 60.45 (subd 2, par [b]). (Appeal from judgment of Wayne County Court — grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Witmer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 1087, 415 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-matkowski-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack