People v. McCoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCoy

27 A.D.2d 858, 278 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 858 (People v. McCoy) 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. McCoy, 27 A.D.2d 858, 278 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the County Court, Westchester County, dated November 18, 1965, reversed, on the law, and motion remitted to the court below for a hearing on all the issues raised in the record relating to the arrest and the search and seizure and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. On this motion by defendant to suppress, the opposing affidavit of an Assistant District Attorney indicated that a controversy existed between the facts presented by defendant and the facts in the possession of the People. In our opinion, the foregoing, coupled with requests that a hearing be held to determine the issues, was sufficient to mandate such a hearing (cf. United States v. Okawa, 26 F. R. D. 384; United States v. Warrington, 17 F. R. D. 25; People v. Weldon, 17 N Y 2d 814; People v. Cuppinger, 23 A D 2d 681). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the County Court, Westchester County, dated November 18, 1965, reversed, on the law, and motion remitted to the court below for a hearing on all the issues raised in the record relating to the arrest and the search and seizure and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. On this motion by defendant to suppress, the opposing affidavit of an Assistant District Attorney indicated that a controversy existed between the facts presented by defendant and the facts in the possession of the People. In our opinion, the foregoing, coupled with requests that a hearing be held to determine the issues, was sufficient to mandate such a hearing (cf. United States v. Okawa, 26 F. R. D. 384; United States v. Warrington, 17 F. R. D. 25; People v. Weldon, 17 N Y 2d 814; People v. Cuppinger, 23 A D 2d 681). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 858, 278 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccoy-nyappdiv-1967.