People v. Sepulveda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sepulveda

64 A.D.2d 658, 407 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12476

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

DecidedJuly 17, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 658 (People v. Sepulveda) 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. Sepulveda, 64 A.D.2d 658, 407 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 19, 1975, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the factor which distinguishes this case from cases such as People v La Pene (40 NY2d 210) and justifies the forcible seizure of defendant is that the anonymous telephone call at bar indicated that a gun or guns had actually been fired (see People v La Pene, supra, p 225; see, also, People v McLaurin, 43 NY2d 902, revg 56 AD2d 80 on the dissenting opn of Mr. Justice Nunez). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 19, 1975, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the factor which distinguishes this case from cases such as People v La Pene (40 NY2d 210) and justifies the forcible seizure of defendant is that the anonymous telephone call at bar indicated that a gun or guns had actually been fired (see People v La Pene, supra, p 225; see, also, People v McLaurin, 43 NY2d 902, revg 56 AD2d 80 on the dissenting opn of Mr. Justice Nunez). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 658, 407 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sepulveda-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack