People v. Struss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Struss

11 A.D.3d 715, 782 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12550

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 715 (People v. Struss) 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. Struss, 11 A.D.3d 715, 782 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 17, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In support of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, the defendant failed to raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]; People v Grimaldi, 304 AD2d 589 [2003]; People v Hamilton, 297 AD2d 289 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, 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, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 17, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In support of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, the defendant failed to raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]; People v Grimaldi, 304 AD2d 589 [2003]; People v Hamilton, 297 AD2d 289 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 715, 782 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-struss-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack