People v. Midgette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Midgette

149 A.D.2d 627, 540 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956

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

DecidedApril 17, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 627 (People v. Midgette) 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. Midgette, 149 A.D.2d 627, 540 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lane, J.), rendered February 26, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the record supports the hearing court’s determination that the car in which the defendant was riding was legitimately stopped for a traffic violation (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 415). Under these circumstances suppression was properly denied. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lane, J.), rendered February 26, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the record supports the hearing court’s determination that the car in which the defendant was riding was legitimately stopped for a traffic violation (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 415). Under these circumstances suppression was properly denied. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 627, 540 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-midgette-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack