You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS TANGIBLE...
, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS TANGIBLE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS ISSUED BASED UPON UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT, STATEMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED BY THE TRIAL COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering new suppression motions and a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress tangible evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant which was issued based upon unwarned statements made by the defendant, statements which had been suppressed by the trial court:

Here, defense counsel’s assertion of an inappropriate argument in support of the belated suppression motion, and counsel’s complete failure to challenge the admissibility of physical evidence seized from the defendant’s home based on the Miranda violation … , prejudiced the defendant and rendered counsel’s representation ineffective … . People v Corchado, 2019 NY Slip Op 06408, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

You might also like
THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES DID NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TO CONTEST THE ANNUAL INSPECTION FEES; A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY BASED UPON A STATUTORY DUTY WILL NOT FLY UNLESS THE STATUTE PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED IF IT SETS FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE MERITS OF THE REQUEST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Failure to Cooperate with Probation Department Is Valid Reason for Enhanced Sentence
25 Minute Response Time by Fire Department Was Not Actionable—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiffs and Fire Department—Fire Department’s Duty Is to the Public At Large
SNOW-REMOVAL COMPANY NOT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACT; NO NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PLED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
THE BROKER WAS THE PROCURING CAUSE OF THE SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE AGREED 4% COMMISSION (SECOND DEPT).
City Can Not Be Held Liable for Injuries Caused by Attacking Dogs About Which Complaints Had Been Made—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiff’s Decedent and City
Failure to Allege a Favorable Result Would Have Obtained “But For” the Attorney’s Alleged Malpractice Required Dismissal of the Complaint

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NO EVIDENCE THE FATAL ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY DRIVING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS;... UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PRE-MIRANDA QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT...