People v. Priest

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Priest

227 A.D.2d 574, 643 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5305

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 20, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered October 17, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, 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 a gun and his statements to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The search of the premises was pursuant to the consent of the legal representative of the owner. That consent was an independent act of free will, sufficiently attenuated from the [575]*575taint of any prior allegedly illegal conduct (see, People v Borges, 69 NY2d 1031). Accordingly, seizure of the gun was proper.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v Huffman, 61 NY2d 795). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Goldstein, 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, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered October 17, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, 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 a gun and his statements to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The search of the premises was pursuant to the consent of the legal representative of the owner. That consent was an independent act of free will, sufficiently attenuated from the [575]*575taint of any prior allegedly illegal conduct (see, People v Borges, 69 NY2d 1031). Accordingly, seizure of the gun was proper.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v Huffman, 61 NY2d 795). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Priest, 227 A.D.2d 574, 643 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

227 A.D.2d 574 (People v. Priest) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related