People v. Yalti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yalti

76 A.D.2d 847, 428 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11899

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

DecidedJune 2, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 847 (People v. Yalti) 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. Yalti, 76 A.D.2d 847, 428 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 31, 1979, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Order affirmed. Assuming, arguendo, that the officers’ reasonable belief in the authority of the defendant’s estranged husband to consent to a search of her apartment would be sufficient for purposes of the Fourth Amendment (see, generally, 2 La Fave, Search and Seizure, A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 8.3, pp 716-725 and the cases cited therein; but see United States v Matlock, 415 US 164, 171, n 7; People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286, 293, n 2), it is our belief that the evidence at bar precluded the officers from reasonably so concluding, especially in view of the representation by defendant’s husband that he needed the officers’ assistance in gaining admittance to the apartment in question because his wife, who was not at home at the time, had proceeded to change the locks in an apparent attempt to exclude him from the premises (cf. People v Deborah J. AA, 63 AD2d 808). Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 31, 1979, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Order affirmed. Assuming, arguendo, that the officers’ reasonable belief in the authority of the defendant’s estranged husband to consent to a search of her apartment would be sufficient for purposes of the Fourth Amendment (see, generally, 2 La Fave, Search and Seizure, A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 8.3, pp 716-725 and the cases cited therein; but see United States v Matlock, 415 US 164, 171, n 7; People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286, 293, n 2), it is our belief that the evidence at bar precluded the officers from reasonably so concluding, especially in view of the representation by defendant’s husband that he needed the officers’ assistance in gaining admittance to the apartment in question because his wife, who was not at home at the time, had proceeded to change the locks in an apparent attempt to exclude him from the premises (cf. People v Deborah J. AA, 63 AD2d 808). Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 847, 428 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yalti-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack