People v. Young

158 A.D.2d 398, 551 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1872
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Young. Read the opinion of the Court — 138 A.D.2d 764

Opinion

The denial of an evidentiary suppression hearing was not erroneous. The various papers in support of the motion did not include sufficient allegations of fact supporting the grounds advanced for the hearing. (CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; People v Bostick, 100 AD2d 721.)

Neither was it an abuse of discretion to join the three indictments for trial. The facts alleged in each indictment were sufficiently similar to justify joinder. (CPL 200.20 [2] [b], [c]; People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1.) In any event, the defendant’s vague and unspecific objection to consolidation did not preserve the issue for review. (People v Rivera, 73 NY2d 941.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

People v. Young, 158 A.D.2d 398, 551 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

158 A.D.2d 398 (People v. Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lane
436 N.E.2d 456 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Rivera
537 N.E.2d 618 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Bostick
100 A.D.2d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)