People v. Noble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Noble

131 A.D.3d 550, 14 N.Y.S.3d 697

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

DecidedAugust 12, 2015

Docket2011-09310

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 550 (People v. Noble) 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. Noble, 131 A.D.3d 550, 14 N.Y.S.3d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), rendered September 23, 2011, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (two counts) and sexual abuse in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Sullivan, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant did not unequivocally and unqualifiedly express a desire to remain silent (see People v Seda, 289 AD2d 422 [2001]). The court’s determination, which turned on its assessment of the hearing testimony of a detective, is supported by the record (see People v Almonor, 122 AD3d 763 [2014]; People v Lowin, 36 AD3d 1153, 1155 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

The defendant’s contention that certain counts in the indictment were multiplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Cruz, 96 NY2d 857 [2001]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Salton, 120 AD3d 838 [2014]; People v Saunders, 290 AD2d 461 [2002]).

Chambers, J.R, Hall, Cohen and Maltese, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), rendered September 23, 2011, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (two counts) and sexual abuse in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Sullivan, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant did not unequivocally and unqualifiedly express a desire to remain silent (see People v Seda, 289 AD2d 422 [2001]). The court’s determination, which turned on its assessment of the hearing testimony of a detective, is supported by the record (see People v Almonor, 122 AD3d 763 [2014]; People v Lowin, 36 AD3d 1153, 1155 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

The defendant’s contention that certain counts in the indictment were multiplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Cruz, 96 NY2d 857 [2001]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Salton, 120 AD3d 838 [2014]; People v Saunders, 290 AD2d 461 [2002]).

Chambers, J.R, Hall, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 550, 14 N.Y.S.3d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-noble-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack