People v. Savino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Savino

20 A.D.2d 901, 248 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4089

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

DecidedApril 6, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 901 (People v. Savino) 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. Savino, 20 A.D.2d 901, 248 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered January 5, 1982 after a jury trial, convicting him (and a eodefendant) of robbery and grand larceny (both in the first degree) and assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, although it was error to admit into evidence defendant’s hat and coat because their seizure was the result of a search which was not incidental to defendant’s arrest, nevertheless the admission of such evidence did not affect defendant’s substantial rights and may be disregarded (Code Grim. Pro., § 542). [For affirmance of judgment as to the codefendant, see People v. De Berry, 20 A D 2d 758.] Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, 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 former County Court, Kings County, rendered January 5, 1982 after a jury trial, convicting him (and a eodefendant) of robbery and grand larceny (both in the first degree) and assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, although it was error to admit into evidence defendant’s hat and coat because their seizure was the result of a search which was not incidental to defendant’s arrest, nevertheless the admission of such evidence did not affect defendant’s substantial rights and may be disregarded (Code Grim. Pro., § 542). [For affirmance of judgment as to the codefendant, see People v. De Berry, 20 A D 2d 758.] Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 901, 248 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-savino-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack