You are here: / / FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS WEAPON CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
, ,

FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS WEAPON CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals determined defendant, who was charged with criminal possession of a weapon, was not afforded effective assistance of counsel in that defense counsel did not move to suppress the weapon. The matter was remitted for a suppression hearing. The underlying facts were not addressed in the decision. People v Bilal, 2016 NY Slip Op 02475, CtApp 3-31-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS WEAPON CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS WEAPON CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS WEAPON CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

You might also like
Public Trust Doctrine Re: Allowing a Restaurant in a Public Park/License and Lease Characteristics Compared
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT (CT APP).
Plaintiff’s Lost Profits Deemed “General Damages,” Not “Consequential Damages,” Re: a Distribution Contract in which Plaintiff Agreed to Resell Defendant’s Product
THE JUDGE COMMITTED A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR BY FAILING TO ACCURATELY AND FULLY INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (CT APP).
EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND.
THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP).
CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP).
STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING.

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

NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DID NOT EXCEED ITS... DEFENSE COUNSEL’S DECISION TO FOREGO A REQUEST TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION...