People v. McLaren

New York Court of Appeals

People v. McLaren

465 N.E.2d 357, 62 N.Y.2d 730, 476 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4330

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 465 N.E.2d 357 (People v. McLaren) 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. McLaren, 465 N.E.2d 357, 62 N.Y.2d 730, 476 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4330 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

Although the court erred in holding that the People should have produced the undercover officer at the hearing (see People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47), its acceptance of the defendant’s alternative argument, that under the circumstances the evidence seized in the premises could not be said to be in plain view, involves a mixed question of law and fact which is not subject to further review in this court when, as here, it is supported by evidence in the record (see People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470). Thus the order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed for this reason alone.

[732]*732Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

Although the court erred in holding that the People should have produced the undercover officer at the hearing (see People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47), its acceptance of the defendant’s alternative argument, that under the circumstances the evidence seized in the premises could not be said to be in plain view, involves a mixed question of law and fact which is not subject to further review in this court when, as here, it is supported by evidence in the record (see People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470). Thus the order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed for this reason alone.

[732]*732Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 N.E.2d 357, 62 N.Y.2d 730, 476 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mclaren-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack