People v. Mercado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mercado

24 A.D.2d 609, 262 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3603

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Mercado) 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. Mercado, 24 A.D.2d 609, 262 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by each defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 28, 1963 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, and imposing sentence. As to each defendant, judgment affirmed. The defendants’ motion to suppress evidence was properly denied (cf. People v. Rivera, 14 N Y 2d 441, 444-445; People v. Entrialgo, 19 A D 2d 509, 511, affd. 14 N Y 2d 733; United States v. Vita, 294 F. 2d 524, 530, cert. den. 369 U. S. 823; People v. Wulffen, 23 A D 2d 875). In our opinion, under the decisional law of this State, it may not properly be held that, on a motion to suppress evidence, the burden of proof is on the People (cf. People v. Allen, 45 Misc 2d 739; People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86 — compare the footnote No. 2 in the official bound volume with the footnote in the official advance sheet dated Feb. 10, 1965). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by each defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 28, 1963 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, and imposing sentence. As to each defendant, judgment affirmed. The defendants’ motion to suppress evidence was properly denied (cf. People v. Rivera, 14 N Y 2d 441, 444-445; People v. Entrialgo, 19 A D 2d 509, 511, affd. 14 N Y 2d 733; United States v. Vita, 294 F. 2d 524, 530, cert. den. 369 U. S. 823; People v. Wulffen, 23 A D 2d 875). In our opinion, under the decisional law of this State, it may not properly be held that, on a motion to suppress evidence, the burden of proof is on the People (cf. People v. Allen, 45 Misc 2d 739; People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86 — compare the footnote No. 2 in the official bound volume with the footnote in the official advance sheet dated Feb. 10, 1965). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 609, 262 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mercado-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack