People v. Suqui
This text of 2023 NY Slip Op 34725(U) (People v. Suqui) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, Westchester County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
People v Suqui 2023 NY Slip Op 34725(U) November 9, 2023 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Ind. No. 23-71854-001 Judge: Robert A. Neary Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. (
FILED. AND ENTERED ON//..,..?- 2o.el3 WESTCHESTER COUNTY.CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF THE"STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ---------------------------------------- --------------. ---------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
- against - DECISION AND ORDER
CARLOS SUQUI, . Ind: No. 23-71854-001
Defendant. -----------------. ---- .------------------ ·------------------------X NEARY, J.
The defendant, Carlos Suqui, has been charged with the crimes of Driving While
Intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3]), Aggravated Unlicensed Operation
of a Motor Vehicle in the First Degree (Vehicle and 'Iraffic Law §511 [3][a][i]), Failure to Signal
a Turn (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [b]), Moved from Lane Unsafely/Driving on Roadways
Laned for Traffic (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1128[a]), Failure to Stop While Facing a Steady
_Circular Red Signal (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [d][l]) and Driving Without -1 aLicense .· ¾I. . . FILED NOV - 9 2023 TIMOTHY C. IOONI COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER [* 1] People v. Carlos Suqui Indictment No. 23-71854-001
(Vehicle and Traffic Law §509[1]). The defendant has made an omnibus motion which consists
of a Notice of Motion and an Affirmation and Memorandum of Law in support thereof. In
response, the People have filed an Affirmation in Opposition together with a Memorandum of
Law. Having read all of the submitted papers and reviewed the court file, this Court makes the .
following determination.
1. MOTION FOR INSPECTION AND REDUCTION OR DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL SECTIONS 210.20 AND 210.30 DUE TO THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOF SUBMITTED TO THE GRAND JURY
The defendant's motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is granted. Upon an in camera
inspection of the Grand Jury minutes by Court, the motion to dismiss the indictment or reduce a
charged offense in the indictment is denied.
The Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceeding before the Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury was properly instructed (see People v. Calbud, 49 NY2d 389,426 NYS2d 389,
402 NE2d 1140 and People v. Valles, 62 NY2d 36,476 NYS2d 50,464 NE2d 418) and the
evidence presented, if accepted as true would be legally sufficient to establish every element of
the offenses charged. [See CPL §210.30(2)]. In addition, the minutes reveal that a quorum of the
grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the district attorney
instructed the Grand Jury on the law, and that it was instructed that only those grand jurors who
had heard all the evidence could participate in voting on the matter. .
· The Co.urt does not find that the release of the Grand Jury minutes.or certain
portions thereof to the parties was necessary to assist the Court in making this.determination.
Page 2
[* 2] People v. Carlos Suqui Indictment No. 23-71854-001
2. MOTION FOR A SANDOVAL/VENTIMIGLIA HEARING REQUIRING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO DISCLOSE ANY PRIOR CONVICTIONS,-VICIOUS ACTS OR IMMORAL ACTS OF THE DEFENDANT WHICH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY INTENDS TO QUESTION THE DEFENDANT ABOUT AND ORDERING THAT A HEARING BE HELD BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE AS TO WHETHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT AS TO SUCH PRIOR CONVICTIONS OR ACTS
Immediately prior to commencement of jury selection, the prosecutor shall, upon
request of the defendant, notify the defendant of any prior criminal act which the People seek to
use in the cross-examination of the defendant as well as all specific instances of the defendant'·s
prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which the prosecutor has knowledge
. and which the prosecutor intends to use at trial for the purposes of impeaching the credibility of
the defendant. Thereafter, upon the defendant's request, the trial court shall conduct a Sandoval
and/or Ventimiglia hearing prior to the commencement of trial. [See People v. .Sandoval, 34
NY2d 371 (1974); People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 (1981); People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264
(1901)]. ,,
Page 3
[* 3] People V. Carlos Suqui Indictment No. 23-71854-001
3. MOTION TO STRIKE THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO OFFER A STATEMENT AS INSUFFICIENT AND WHICH VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO CPL ARTICLE 710 OR MOTION FOR AN ORDER SUPPRESSING THE ALLEGED STATEMENT NOTICED TO THE DEFENSE AND ALL FRUITS OF SUCH STATEMENT, SINCE SUCH STATEMENT WAS INVOLUNTARY AND MADE WITHOUT PROPER ADVISE OR KNOWING WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS AND WAS THE PRODUCT OF AN UNLAWFUL ARREST AND MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO CPL ARTICLE 710 AND SECTION 60.45 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A HUNTLEYHEARING TO DETERMINE THEADMISSIBLITY OF ANY STATEMENTS MADE
This branch of the defendant's motion is granted to the·extent that a Huntley
hearing shall be held prior to trial to determine whether any state·ments allegedly made by the
defendant, which have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL §710.30 (l)(a), were
involuntarily made by the defendant within the meaning of CPL §60.45 (see CPL §710.20(3),
CPL §710.60[3][b]; People v. Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012, 429 NYS2d 399,406 NE2d 1335),
obtained in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and/or obtained in
violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see Dunaway v. New York, 442 US 200,
99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 LE2d 824).
4. MOTION TO SUPPRESS.PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, INCLUDING EVIDENCE OF OBSERVATIONS OF FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, AS THE FRUITS OF AN ILLEGAL SEIZURE
This branch of the defendant's motion is granted solely to the extent of
conducting a Mapp hearing prior to trial to determine the propriety of any search resulting in t_he
seizure of property (see Mapp v. Ohio,-367 US 643, 81 S Ct 1684, 6 LE2d 1081) and whether
Page 4
[* 4] People v. Carlos Suqui Indictment No. 23-71854-001
any evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to c_ounsel
. and/or obtained in violatiori.of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. [See Dunaway v. New
York, 42 {,JS 200, 99 S Ct. 2248, 60LE2d 824].
5. MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLEGED REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST OF DEFENDANT'S BREATH PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW SEC,TION 1194(2)(F)
' ·The motion is granted to the extent that the Court will conduct a hearing
immediately prior to trial to determine the admissibility of any refusal on the defendant's part, to
submit to any chemical test.
6. MOTION TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
Upon a proper showing, the Court will entertain appropriate additional motions
based upon grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously
aware, o_r which, for other good c~use, could not reasonably have been raised in this motion.
[See CPL §255.20(3)].
Page 5
[* 5] People v. Carlos Suqui Indictment No. 23-71854-001
This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York November 9, .2023
ROBERT A..
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 NY Slip Op 34725(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-suqui-nysupctwster-2023.