People v. Van Dyke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Van Dyke

39 A.D.3d 280, 831 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedApril 10, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 280 (People v. Van Dyke) 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. Van Dyke, 39 A.D.3d 280, 831 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., on suppression motions; Maxwell Wiley, J., at plea and sentence), rendered May 5, 2005, convicting defendant of four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Based upon our review of the minutes of the Darden hearing (People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), we conclude that there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant (see generally Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]). We have examined defendant’s pro se arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Williams, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., on suppression motions; Maxwell Wiley, J., at plea and sentence), rendered May 5, 2005, convicting defendant of four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Based upon our review of the minutes of the Darden hearing (People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), we conclude that there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant (see generally Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]). We have examined defendant’s pro se arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Williams, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 280, 831 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-dyke-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack