People v. McFarlane

New York Court of Appeals

People v. McFarlane

995 N.E.2d 845, 21 N.Y.3d 1034

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 29, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 995 N.E.2d 845 (People v. McFarlane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. McFarlane, 995 N.E.2d 845, 21 N.Y.3d 1034 (N.Y. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determination as to whether a defendant has consented to a search involves a mixed question of law and fact (People v Valerio, 95 NY2d 924, 925 [2000]). Where, as here, there exists record support for the Appellate Division’s resolution of this question, the issue is beyond this Court’s further review (id.).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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