People v. Nieves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nieves

130 A.D.2d 775, 516 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46803

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

DecidedMay 26, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.2d 775 (People v. Nieves) 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. Nieves, 130 A.D.2d 775, 516 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered February 4, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to the police on October 2, 1984.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[776]*776The defendant’s statement made on October 2, 1984, was properly ruled admissible (see, People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). The defendant waived his right to appellate review of the issue of suppression of his statement of October 11, 1984, by withdrawing any challenge to the admissibility of that statement prior to the hearing court’s order and decision (see, People v Corti, 88 AD2d 345). The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, 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, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered February 4, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to the police on October 2, 1984.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[776]*776The defendant’s statement made on October 2, 1984, was properly ruled admissible (see, People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). The defendant waived his right to appellate review of the issue of suppression of his statement of October 11, 1984, by withdrawing any challenge to the admissibility of that statement prior to the hearing court’s order and decision (see, People v Corti, 88 AD2d 345). The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 775, 516 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nieves-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack