People v. Watson
49 A.D.3d 385, 852 N.Y.2d 775
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Watson. Read the opinion of the Court — 32 A.D.3d 1199 →
Opinion
The motion court erred in summarily denying defendant’s suppression motion on the ground that he did not admit he was in possession of the physical evidence the police claimed to have found on his person (see People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584, 588 [2006] ). As the court indicated, defendant’s moving papers were otherwise sufficient to warrant a hearing (see id. at 590). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Watson, 49 A.D.3d 385, 852 N.Y.2d 775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).
49 A.D.3d 385 (People v. Watson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Burton
848 N.E.2d 454 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)