People v. Whiten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Whiten

151 A.D.2d 708, 543 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203

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

DecidedJune 19, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 708 (People v. Whiten) 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. Whiten, 151 A.D.2d 708, 543 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered September 14, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress physical evidence and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The defendant made a sufficient prima facie factual showing within his motion papers to warrant a Dunaway suppression hearing on the issues raised therein (see, CPL 710.60 [3], [4]; People v Soriano, 134 AD2d 186; People v Marshall, 122 AD2d 283, 284; People v Jenkins, 73 AD2d 694, 695). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court to hear and report on the motion, and the appeal will be held in abeyance in the interim (see, People v Marshall, supra). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kunzeman and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered September 14, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress physical evidence and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The defendant made a sufficient prima facie factual showing within his motion papers to warrant a Dunaway suppression hearing on the issues raised therein (see, CPL 710.60 [3], [4]; People v Soriano, 134 AD2d 186; People v Marshall, 122 AD2d 283, 284; People v Jenkins, 73 AD2d 694, 695). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court to hear and report on the motion, and the appeal will be held in abeyance in the interim (see, People v Marshall, supra). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kunzeman and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 708, 543 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whiten-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack