People v. Polite

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Polite

126 A.D.2d 577, 510 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41714

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 577 (People v. Polite) 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. Polite, 126 A.D.2d 577, 510 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered October 3, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence and statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly refused to suppress evidence of the showup identifications of the defendant since they were conducted after the police had probable cause to arrest him, and they took place at the crime scene within 20 minutes of the commission of the alleged burglary under conditions which were not unduly suggestive (see, e.g., People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Brnja, 70 AD2d 17, affd 50 NY2d 366; People v Kennerly, 117 AD2d 624). The court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements, since the record clearly supports the hearing court’s determination that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 766; People v Bretts, 111 AD2d 864, 865).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that the alleged errors do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Sullivan, 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, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered October 3, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence and statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly refused to suppress evidence of the showup identifications of the defendant since they were conducted after the police had probable cause to arrest him, and they took place at the crime scene within 20 minutes of the commission of the alleged burglary under conditions which were not unduly suggestive (see, e.g., People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Brnja, 70 AD2d 17, affd 50 NY2d 366; People v Kennerly, 117 AD2d 624). The court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements, since the record clearly supports the hearing court’s determination that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 766; People v Bretts, 111 AD2d 864, 865).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that the alleged errors do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 577, 510 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-polite-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack