You are here: / / DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION...
,

DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MATTER NOT RULED UPON BELOW.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred in finding defendant did not have standing to contest the search of a van. The court explained that it could not consider the merits of the suppression motion because the merits were not ruled upon by the court below. The options for handling this scenario were explained in some detail. The court opted to hold the appeal in abeyance and remit the matter for a suppression hearing:

This Court has deemed it appropriate to reverse or modify the judgment of conviction, rather than holding the appeal in abeyance, where no purpose would be served by holding the appeal and directing that a new determination be made. This is the case, for example, where a determination of the alternative issue would not change the ultimate determination of the suppression motion … , or where the trial court has already determined the alternative issue in the defendant’s favor, in which case the issue would, in all likelihood, be decided in the defendant’s favor again, and thus would remain unreviewable after remittal … . However, where, as here, the alternative issue raised by the People on appeal has not been determined by the trial court, and the resolution of that issue could affect the determination of the suppression motion, we deem it appropriate to hold the defendant’s appeal in abeyance and remit the matter for consideration of the alternative issue. People v Chazbani, 2016 NY Slip Op 07337, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MATTER NOT RULED UPON BELOW)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MATTER NOT RULED UPON BELOW)

You might also like
Defendant Who Objected to the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Was Entitled to a Hearing Even Though the Restitution-Amount Was (Apparently) Specified in the Plea Agreement
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT SUBMITTED.
Failure to Construct a Concrete Pad at a Bus Stop Does Not Constitute “Affirmative Negligence” On the Part of the City—Written Notice Requirement Applied
Father’s Petition to Relocate to North Carolina Properly Denied
Question of Fact Re: Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault Precludes Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Erroneously Granted Summary Judgment to Plaintiff “To the Extent … Defendant Is Liable”
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED IN THE HIGHWAY LANE FOR NO APPARENT REASON RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE BEEN REZONED, RAISING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (NYCHHC); CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

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

COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING... DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO...