People v. Novick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Novick

293 A.D.2d 692, 740 N.Y.S.2d 641, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944

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

DecidedApril 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 692 (People v. Novick) 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. Novick, 293 A.D.2d 692, 740 N.Y.S.2d 641, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Molea, J.), rendered May 17, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In support of his motion to renew and reargue his application to controvert the search warrant, the defendant failed to make the necessary “substantial preliminary showing” that the search warrant was issued based upon an affidavit containing knowingly or intentionally false statements or material omissions (Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 155-156; see People v Alfinito, 16 NY2d 181).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, 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, Dutchess County (Molea, J.), rendered May 17, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In support of his motion to renew and reargue his application to controvert the search warrant, the defendant failed to make the necessary “substantial preliminary showing” that the search warrant was issued based upon an affidavit containing knowingly or intentionally false statements or material omissions (Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 155-156; see People v Alfinito, 16 NY2d 181).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 692, 740 N.Y.S.2d 641, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-novick-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack