People v. Mendoza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mendoza

211 A.D.2d 493, 621 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 353

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 493 (People v. Mendoza) 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. Mendoza, 211 A.D.2d 493, 621 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered February 28, 1994, after remittitur from the Court of Appeals for a suppression hearing, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender, to a term of IY2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with the suppression court that the People satisfied their burden of proving that the private security guard did not have any connection with law enforcement agencies or their personnel, and that his acts therefore are not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny (People v Lovejoy, 197 AD2d 353, lv denied 82 NY2d 926). Nor were the People required to prove that the store manager was not an agent of the State, defendant having failed to raise any issue with respect to the manager in his moving papers, and in any event, the evidence showed that the security guard took defendant into custody without consulting the manager and that the latter’s role in the incident was otherwise insignificant. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered February 28, 1994, after remittitur from the Court of Appeals for a suppression hearing, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender, to a term of IY2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with the suppression court that the People satisfied their burden of proving that the private security guard did not have any connection with law enforcement agencies or their personnel, and that his acts therefore are not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny (People v Lovejoy, 197 AD2d 353, lv denied 82 NY2d 926). Nor were the People required to prove that the store manager was not an agent of the State, defendant having failed to raise any issue with respect to the manager in his moving papers, and in any event, the evidence showed that the security guard took defendant into custody without consulting the manager and that the latter’s role in the incident was otherwise insignificant. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 493, 621 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mendoza-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack