People v. Solonchak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Solonchak

261 A.D.2d 644, 690 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5712

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 644 (People v. Solonchak) 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. Solonchak, 261 A.D.2d 644, 690 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Corso, J.), rendered October 9, 1998, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the eavesdropping warrant was properly granted. The affidavits submitted in support of the warrant established that wiretapping would be more effective than surveillance or undercover drug buys since it would reveal the location of the drugs, the scope and growth of the conspiracy, and the identity of its participants (see, People v Brown, 233 AD2d 764; People v Hafner, 152 AD2d 961; People v Rumpel, 111 AD2d 481, 482). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the recorded conversations resulting therefrom. Mangano, P. J., Friedmann, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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, Suffolk County (Corso, J.), rendered October 9, 1998, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the eavesdropping warrant was properly granted. The affidavits submitted in support of the warrant established that wiretapping would be more effective than surveillance or undercover drug buys since it would reveal the location of the drugs, the scope and growth of the conspiracy, and the identity of its participants (see, People v Brown, 233 AD2d 764; People v Hafner, 152 AD2d 961; People v Rumpel, 111 AD2d 481, 482). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the recorded conversations resulting therefrom. Mangano, P. J., Friedmann, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 644, 690 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-solonchak-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack