People v. Russo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Russo

45 A.D.2d 1040, 357 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302

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

DecidedJuly 29, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 1040 (People v. Russo) 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. Russo, 45 A.D.2d 1040, 357 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 10,1972, convicting him, upon a jury verdict of criminally negligent homicide and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant was arrested for causing the death of Esther Alice Curtis by striking her with an automobile. He was indicted for, and convicted of criminally negligent homicide. At the outset of the trial a Huntley hearing (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72) was held to determine the admissibility of certain statements. At the conclusion of the hearing the court denied the suppression motion without stating its findings of fact or conclusions of law. Defendant considers this to be reversible error. We do not. The court should have spread on the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law (see People v. Growich, 38 A D 2d 733). However, such findings may be implied where the defendant, as here, had a full and fair hearing on the motion to suppress and the record itself serves as an ample basis for review of the determination which was made (People v. Brady, 16 N Y 2d 186; People v. Alfinito, 16 N Y 2d 181). Further, even though CPL 710.60 (subds. 4, 6) requires that the court make findings of fact, its failure to do so is not fatal because this court can make the necessary findings of fact, at least where no jury is involved (CPL 470.15, subd. 1; People v. Brown, 33 A D 2d 735). Viewing the uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of the prosecution’s witness, the sole witness to testify at the suppression hearing, the People have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the admissions were voluntarily made after the requisite warnings were given to defendant. We have examined the other issues raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 10,1972, convicting him, upon a jury verdict of criminally negligent homicide and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant was arrested for causing the death of Esther Alice Curtis by striking her with an automobile. He was indicted for, and convicted of criminally negligent homicide. At the outset of the trial a Huntley hearing (People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72) was held to determine the admissibility of certain statements. At the conclusion of the hearing the court denied the suppression motion without stating its findings of fact or conclusions of law. Defendant considers this to be reversible error. We do not. The court should have spread on the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law (see People v. Growich, 38 A D 2d 733). However, such findings may be implied where the defendant, as here, had a full and fair hearing on the motion to suppress and the record itself serves as an ample basis for review of the determination which was made (People v. Brady, 16 N Y 2d 186; People v. Alfinito, 16 N Y 2d 181). Further, even though CPL 710.60 (subds. 4, 6) requires that the court make findings of fact, its failure to do so is not fatal because this court can make the necessary findings of fact, at least where no jury is involved (CPL 470.15, subd. 1; People v. Brown, 33 A D 2d 735). Viewing the uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of the prosecution’s witness, the sole witness to testify at the suppression hearing, the People have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the admissions were voluntarily made after the requisite warnings were given to defendant. We have examined the other issues raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 1040, 357 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-russo-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack