People v. Vargas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vargas

306 A.D.2d 163, 760 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7218

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

DecidedJune 19, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 163 (People v. Vargas) 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. Vargas, 306 A.D.2d 163, 760 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered October 20, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without holding a Mapp /Dunaway hearing. Although the People’s voluntary disclosure form clearly indicated that the predicate for defendant’s arrest was an officer’s observation of an apparent drug transaction, which was described in detail, defendant’s moving papers failed to address this information (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721 [2001]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]) or otherwise supply information sufficient to raise an issue of fact. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered October 20, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without holding a Mapp /Dunaway hearing. Although the People’s voluntary disclosure form clearly indicated that the predicate for defendant’s arrest was an officer’s observation of an apparent drug transaction, which was described in detail, defendant’s moving papers failed to address this information (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721 [2001]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]) or otherwise supply information sufficient to raise an issue of fact. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 163, 760 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vargas-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack