People v. Wade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wade

168 A.D.2d 750, 564 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15234

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 750 (People v. Wade) 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. Wade, 168 A.D.2d 750, 564 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered December 7, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree.

Because the record in this case indicates the source of the information conveyed by the sending officer to the arresting officer, the People were not required to call the sending officer to testify at the suppression hearing upon defendant’s challenge to the reliability of that information (see, People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47, cert denied 469 US 852; People v James, 135 AD2d 832, lv denied 71 NY2d 969). Therefore, even if it is accepted that this claim was properly preserved for review (see, People v Landy, 59 NY2d 369), it is nevertheless rejected. We have examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered December 7, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree.

Because the record in this case indicates the source of the information conveyed by the sending officer to the arresting officer, the People were not required to call the sending officer to testify at the suppression hearing upon defendant’s challenge to the reliability of that information (see, People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47, cert denied 469 US 852; People v James, 135 AD2d 832, lv denied 71 NY2d 969). Therefore, even if it is accepted that this claim was properly preserved for review (see, People v Landy, 59 NY2d 369), it is nevertheless rejected. We have examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 750, 564 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wade-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack