People v. Ruth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ruth

260 A.D.2d 296, 689 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401

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

DecidedApril 27, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 296 (People v. Ruth) 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. Ruth, 260 A.D.2d 296, 689 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered June 1, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s summary denial of defendant’s request for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing was proper. Defendant’s initial motion papers were clearly insufficient to warrant such a hearing (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415), and the court’s refusal to consider defendant’s supplementary affirmation alleging facts in defendant’s actual knowledge from the inception of the case was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant “fail[ed] to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application.” (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568.) Furthermore, the fact that the court ordered a Huntley hearing involving the same witnesses did not obligate it to order a Mapp!Dunaway hearing as a matter of discretion (People v [297]*297Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 429-430, supra). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Sullivan, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered June 1, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s summary denial of defendant’s request for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing was proper. Defendant’s initial motion papers were clearly insufficient to warrant such a hearing (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415), and the court’s refusal to consider defendant’s supplementary affirmation alleging facts in defendant’s actual knowledge from the inception of the case was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant “fail[ed] to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application.” (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568.) Furthermore, the fact that the court ordered a Huntley hearing involving the same witnesses did not obligate it to order a Mapp!Dunaway hearing as a matter of discretion (People v [297]*297Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 429-430, supra). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Sullivan, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 296, 689 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruth-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack