People v. Rivera

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Rivera

229 N.E.2d 59, 20 N.Y.2d 669, 282 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1365

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 229 N.E.2d 59 (People v. Rivera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rivera, 229 N.E.2d 59, 20 N.Y.2d 669, 282 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1365 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for a hearing on the motion to suppress for the following reasons: Where, as here, defendant’s affidavit in support of his motion to suppress satisfies however meagerly the standards set down in rule IV (subd. 3, par. [h]) of Part 2 of the Buies of the Supreme Court, Bronx and New York [671]*671Counties, section 813-c of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates a hearing into any issue of fact necessary to determination of the motion. Since the District Attorney erroneously believed the application to be insufficient on its face and, therefore, failed to submit an affidavit in opposition thereto, it was error to deny the motion to suppress without a hearing. (See People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86, 91, n. 2 [1965].)

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis, Bubke, Bergan and Keating. Judge Scileppi dissents and votes to affirm. Taking no part: Judge Breitel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment reversed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for a hearing on the motion to suppress for the following reasons: Where, as here, defendant’s affidavit in support of his motion to suppress satisfies however meagerly the standards set down in rule IV (subd. 3, par. [h]) of Part 2 of the Buies of the Supreme Court, Bronx and New York [671]*671Counties, section 813-c of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates a hearing into any issue of fact necessary to determination of the motion. Since the District Attorney erroneously believed the application to be insufficient on its face and, therefore, failed to submit an affidavit in opposition thereto, it was error to deny the motion to suppress without a hearing. (See People v. Malinsky, 15 N Y 2d 86, 91, n. 2 [1965].)

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis, Bubke, Bergan and Keating. Judge Scileppi dissents and votes to affirm. Taking no part: Judge Breitel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 N.E.2d 59, 20 N.Y.2d 669, 282 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rivera-ny-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack