People v. Mullgrav

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mullgrav

25 A.D.2d 784, 269 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452

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

DecidedApril 25, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 784 (People v. Mullgrav) 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. Mullgrav, 25 A.D.2d 784, 269 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants from judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 28,1963 after a jury trial, convicting them of .burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the first degree and imposing sentence. Judgments reversed, on the law and the [785]*785facts, and new trial ordered. This court has previously held (People v. Mullgrav, 23 A D 2d 855) that whether defendants’ motion to suppress evidence was properly denied turned upon a question of fact, namely, whether the door to their room was open when the police officer, without a search warrant, arrived at the premises where they lived or whether their landlady opened the door for the officer. Since no finding was made by the trial court on this question, we remitted the matter for a further hearing and proceedings, pending which we withheld determination of the appeal from the judgments. Such further hearing and proceedings have been had and have resulted in a finding of fact by the trial court that the landlady opened the door for the officer — a finding which is amply supported by the record and which we affirm. The search and seizure which followed were, therefore, illegal. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction must be reversed and a new trial .ordered (Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48; Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendants from judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 28,1963 after a jury trial, convicting them of .burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the first degree and imposing sentence. Judgments reversed, on the law and the [785]*785facts, and new trial ordered. This court has previously held (People v. Mullgrav, 23 A D 2d 855) that whether defendants’ motion to suppress evidence was properly denied turned upon a question of fact, namely, whether the door to their room was open when the police officer, without a search warrant, arrived at the premises where they lived or whether their landlady opened the door for the officer. Since no finding was made by the trial court on this question, we remitted the matter for a further hearing and proceedings, pending which we withheld determination of the appeal from the judgments. Such further hearing and proceedings have been had and have resulted in a finding of fact by the trial court that the landlady opened the door for the officer — a finding which is amply supported by the record and which we affirm. The search and seizure which followed were, therefore, illegal. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction must be reversed and a new trial .ordered (Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48; Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 784, 269 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mullgrav-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack