You are here: / / Abuse of Discretion to Entertain a Motion to Suppress Brought More than...
,

Abuse of Discretion to Entertain a Motion to Suppress Brought More than 45 Days After Arraignment (the Motion Had Been Granted and the People Appealed)

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical blood test should not have been granted because the motion was made more than 45 days after arraignment:

The People appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of defendant’s blood, which had been taken from defendant more than two hours after his arrest (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [a] [1]). The motion was made … more than 45 days after defendant’s arraignment …, and was therefore untimely as a matter of law (see CPL 255.20 [1]). We conclude that County Court abused its discretion in entertaining and granting the untimely motion because there was no good cause shown by defendant for an extension of time (see CPL 255.20 [3]…). People v Enright, 2014 NY Slip Op 07850, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

You might also like
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOT SUPREME COURT, IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF AT RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
The Private Right of Action Afforded to Patients in “Residential Health Care Facilities” Pursuant to Public Health Law 2801-d Does Not Apply to Residents of a Group Home for the Developmentally Disabled
Probationers Do Not Lose All Privacy and Fourth Amendment Rights; Condition that Probationer Waive His Fourth Amendment Rights and Consent to the Search of His Home Struck
THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY GAVE THE INSURER THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANT BREACHED THE POLICY BY NOT PROSECUTING THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE PURPORTED “OFF THE RECORD” STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WERE NEVER FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK; A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WITH THE JUDGE’S CLERK DOES NOT MEET THE “OPEN COURT” REQUIREMENT FOR A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SANDOVAL HEARING, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicle Proper Complaint Did Not State Causes of Action for Replevin or Conversion Because...