People v. Waters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Waters

268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 244 (People v. Waters) 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. Waters, 268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered May 9, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant’s arguments are similar to those this Court rejected on the codefendant’s appeal (see, People v Andrews, 243 AD2d 321, lv denied 91 NY2d 923), and we see no reason to reach a different result herein. The court properly refused to preclude testimony as a sanction for the technician’s accidental erasure of the 911 tape during the process of copying. In light of the existence and use of the contemporaneous computer report, the loss of the tape caused no prejudice to defendant (see, People v Hyde, 172 AD2d 305, lv denied 78 NY2d 1077). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered May 9, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant’s arguments are similar to those this Court rejected on the codefendant’s appeal (see, People v Andrews, 243 AD2d 321, lv denied 91 NY2d 923), and we see no reason to reach a different result herein. The court properly refused to preclude testimony as a sanction for the technician’s accidental erasure of the 911 tape during the process of copying. In light of the existence and use of the contemporaneous computer report, the loss of the tape caused no prejudice to defendant (see, People v Hyde, 172 AD2d 305, lv denied 78 NY2d 1077). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-waters-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack