People v. Schnugg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schnugg

258 A.D.2d 669, 684 N.Y.S.2d 581

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 669 (People v. Schnugg) 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. Schnugg, 258 A.D.2d 669, 684 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered March 25, 1997, convicting him [670]*670of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a felony (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the defendant’s statement to the arresting officer that he was alone in the car at the time of the accident. The defendant argues that this statement should have been suppressed since the People did not provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. However, this information was elicited by both the prosecutor and defense counsel during the Huntley hearing. This testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing was sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the People’s intent to use the statement (see, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11 A, CPL 710.30, at 221; see also, People v White, 73 NY2d 468, cert denied 493 US 859; People v Reid, 215 AD2d 507). Accordingly, the defendant had ample opportunity to challenge the statement at that time (see, People v Cooper, 78 NY2d 476, 508; People v Figueras, 199 AD2d 409, 410).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered March 25, 1997, convicting him [670]*670of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a felony (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the defendant’s statement to the arresting officer that he was alone in the car at the time of the accident. The defendant argues that this statement should have been suppressed since the People did not provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. However, this information was elicited by both the prosecutor and defense counsel during the Huntley hearing. This testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing was sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the People’s intent to use the statement (see, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11 A, CPL 710.30, at 221; see also, People v White, 73 NY2d 468, cert denied 493 US 859; People v Reid, 215 AD2d 507). Accordingly, the defendant had ample opportunity to challenge the statement at that time (see, People v Cooper, 78 NY2d 476, 508; People v Figueras, 199 AD2d 409, 410).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 669, 684 N.Y.S.2d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schnugg-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack