You are here: / / THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S CAR...
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AND THE INVENTORY SEARCH WERE LAWFUL; SEIZED EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not demonstrate the impoundment of defendant’s car and the inventory search which turned up a weapon and a marijuana cigarette were lawful. Therefore the seized items should have been suppressed. The defendant parked in a visitor’s space and went into the police station to pick up a friend’s property. After presenting his ID, the police discovered a bench warrant, arrested him, impounded his car and conducted an inventory search:

The People failed to establish the lawfulness of the impoundment of the defendant’s car and subsequent inventory search … . The arresting officer testified that the defendant’s vehicle was legally parked in a visitor’s parking space, and the officer was unaware of posted time limits pertaining to the visitor parking spaces. Although the officer testified that he impounded the defendant’s vehicle to safeguard the defendant’s property against a potential burglary, the People presented no evidence demonstrating any history of burglary or vandalism in the area where the defendant had parked his vehicle. Thus, the People failed to establish that the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was in the interests of public safety or part of the police’s community caretaking function … . Moreover, the People failed to present any evidence as to whether the New York City Police Department had a policy regarding impoundment of vehicles, what that policy required, or whether the arresting officer complied with that policy when he impounded the defendant’s vehicle … . People v Weeks, 2020 NY Slip Op 02198, Second Dept 4-2-20

 

You might also like
A CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS NO LONGER DEEMED CONSENT TO BE SUED IN NEW YORK, FORD’S AND GOODYEAR’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SUIT STEMMED FROM A ROLLOVER ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING IN THIS PARENTAL-ACCESS PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON A REPORT BY A FORENSIC EVALUATOR WHICH WAS NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE HAD ENOUGH CAUSE FOR A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY BUT DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED, FRISKED AND BROUGHT TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL-GROUNDS-PROXIMITY-RESIDENCE PROHIBITION APPLIED TO PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PAROLED WAS BURGLARY; SECOND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS; APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE HOLDER OF A FIRST MORTGAGE WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, THE MORTGAGE HOLDER DID NOT NEED TO FILE ITS OWN FORECLOSURE ACTION TO ENFORCE ITS LIEN ON THE SURPLUS TAX-FORECLOSURE-SALE PROCEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
THE COVID FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM INSTITUTED BY HUD FOR FHA INSURED MORTGAGES APPLIED TO RENDER THE REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE IN THIS CASE TIMELY (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

THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 (HSTPA) DOES NOT APPLY... ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD PROPERLY ALLOWED TO ADOPT THE NEGLECT PETITION AFTER...