People v. Morgano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morgano

17 A.D.3d 608, 792 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071

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

DecidedApril 18, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 608 (People v. Morgano) 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. Morgano, 17 A.D.3d 608, 792 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered March 14, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Rosato, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was probable cause to arrest him and the search of his bag was proper as incident to the arrest (see People v Roque, 99 NY2d 50, 53-54 [2002]; People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 184 [1992]; People v Ralston, 303 AD2d 1014 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered March 14, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Rosato, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was probable cause to arrest him and the search of his bag was proper as incident to the arrest (see People v Roque, 99 NY2d 50, 53-54 [2002]; People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 184 [1992]; People v Ralston, 303 AD2d 1014 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 608, 792 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morgano-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack