People v. Rydell

175 A.D.2d 956, 573 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11149
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 22, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 956 (People v. Rydell) 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. Rydell, 175 A.D.2d 956, 573 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered June 5, 1990, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that County Court erred in failing to suppress certain statements that she claims were the fruits of an illegal detention. The record reveals, however, that defendant voluntarily accompanied the State Troopers to the police barracks and that, at the time the questioning commenced, she was not in custody and was free to leave (see, People v Centeno, 76 NY2d 837, 838; People v Anderson, 145 AD2d 939, 940, lv denied 73 NY2d 974). Neither the fact that she was a suspect in a burglary investigation nor that she was advised of her Miranda warnings prior to the interview establishes to the contrary (see, People v Basso, 140 AD2d 448, 449-450). While defendant was present at the police barracks, the police obtained a statement from Theresa Van Zile which implicated defendant in the burglary, providing probable cause for defendant’s subsequent arrest. The testimony of two State Troopers also indicates that defendant was given and understood her Miranda rights, and any contrary testimony merely presented a question of credibility for County Court to resolve (see, People v Munhall, 92 AD2d 1060, 1061). Under the circumstances, County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Fox
2025 NY Slip Op 07046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
People v. Bell
182 A.D.2d 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D.2d 956, 573 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rydell-nyappdiv-1991.