People v. Salgado

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Salgado

439 N.E.2d 878, 57 N.Y.2d 662, 454 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3604

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 2, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 439 N.E.2d 878 (People v. Salgado) 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. Salgado, 439 N.E.2d 878, 57 N.Y.2d 662, 454 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3604 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The discrepancy in the warrant, which described the apartment to be searched as 25J when in fact the apartment intended was 25C, was not material in view of the facts that the warrant also named the occupant, that the informant accompanied the police to the apartment, was admitted by the person named as occupant, and confirmed to the police that the occupant was the person referred to in the warrant, and that an amendment of the warrant to state the correct designation of the apartment was obtained before any search or seizure was conducted (see People v Taggart, 51 AD2d 863; People v Law, 55 Misc 2d 1075; cf. People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396).

The objection concerning failure to establish due diligence in attempting to locate the informant is not well taken. If addressed to the failure to produce the informant at trial, the objection was not preserved. If addressed to the failure to produce him at the hearing on the warrant, there [664]*664was no obligation to do so the warrant having been issued on the basis of his testimony under oath before the issuing Judge, a transcript of which was presented at the hearing.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The discrepancy in the warrant, which described the apartment to be searched as 25J when in fact the apartment intended was 25C, was not material in view of the facts that the warrant also named the occupant, that the informant accompanied the police to the apartment, was admitted by the person named as occupant, and confirmed to the police that the occupant was the person referred to in the warrant, and that an amendment of the warrant to state the correct designation of the apartment was obtained before any search or seizure was conducted (see People v Taggart, 51 AD2d 863; People v Law, 55 Misc 2d 1075; cf. People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396).

The objection concerning failure to establish due diligence in attempting to locate the informant is not well taken. If addressed to the failure to produce the informant at trial, the objection was not preserved. If addressed to the failure to produce him at the hearing on the warrant, there [664]*664was no obligation to do so the warrant having been issued on the basis of his testimony under oath before the issuing Judge, a transcript of which was presented at the hearing.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 N.E.2d 878, 57 N.Y.2d 662, 454 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salgado-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack