People v. Strange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Strange

194 A.D.2d 474, 599 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6769

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

DecidedJune 24, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 474 (People v. Strange) 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. Strange, 194 A.D.2d 474, 599 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered February 4, 1991, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his pretrial arraignment on the special information (CPL 200.60) renders the proof of the prior conviction insufficient is unpreserved, and were we to reach it in the interest of justice, we would find it lacks merit (People v Cooper, 78 NY2d 476).

Defendant also claims that the statements he made to the arresting officer prior to his arrest should have been suppressed. However, defendant only made the statements after the arresting officer obtained information constituting probable cause. In any event, the statements were not the product of defendant’s initial detention by the two officers who first arrived on the scene (cf., People v Tariq, 170 AD2d 716, 717; People v Johnson, 75 AD2d 715). Rather, defendant made the statements spontaneously in response to the complainants’ explanation of the incident to the arresting officer (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476). Further, the statements made by defendant after Miranda warnings were issued were made voluntarily.

We have considered the defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered February 4, 1991, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his pretrial arraignment on the special information (CPL 200.60) renders the proof of the prior conviction insufficient is unpreserved, and were we to reach it in the interest of justice, we would find it lacks merit (People v Cooper, 78 NY2d 476).

Defendant also claims that the statements he made to the arresting officer prior to his arrest should have been suppressed. However, defendant only made the statements after the arresting officer obtained information constituting probable cause. In any event, the statements were not the product of defendant’s initial detention by the two officers who first arrived on the scene (cf., People v Tariq, 170 AD2d 716, 717; People v Johnson, 75 AD2d 715). Rather, defendant made the statements spontaneously in response to the complainants’ explanation of the incident to the arresting officer (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476). Further, the statements made by defendant after Miranda warnings were issued were made voluntarily.

We have considered the defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 474, 599 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-strange-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack