People v. Weems

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Weems

23 A.D.2d 701, 258 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 701 (People v. Weems) 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. Weems, 23 A.D.2d 701, 258 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 31, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of three counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of assault in the second degree with intent to commit rape, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The evidence warranted the conviction. The defendant made no motion, prior to or at the trial, to suppress the evidence which he now contends was the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure; nor did he object to the introduction of said evidence at the trial. Therefore, his contention on this appeal that the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure comes too late to be of any avail (People v. McCall, 19 A D 2d 630; People v. La Palia, 21 A D 2d 811; People v. Frióla, 11 N Y 2d 157). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 31, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of three counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of assault in the second degree with intent to commit rape, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The evidence warranted the conviction. The defendant made no motion, prior to or at the trial, to suppress the evidence which he now contends was the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure; nor did he object to the introduction of said evidence at the trial. Therefore, his contention on this appeal that the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure comes too late to be of any avail (People v. McCall, 19 A D 2d 630; People v. La Palia, 21 A D 2d 811; People v. Frióla, 11 N Y 2d 157). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 701, 258 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weems-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack