You are here: / / AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION...
, ,

AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANOTHER OFFENSE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized after a street stop should have been granted and vacated defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant was charged with two burglaries on different days. Defendant pled guilty to one of the burglaries in satisfaction of both. Defendant appealed the denial of the suppression motion related to the street stop. The Fourth Department did not reach the merits of the appeal because the suppression motion did not involve the offense to which defendant pled guilty. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the denial of the suppression motion was appealable because of its potential effect on the decision to plead guilty in satisfaction of both charges:

A majority of this Court concluded that ” the judgment of conviction on appeal here did not ensue from the denial of the motion to suppress [relating solely to count two] and the latter [wa]s, therefore, not reviewable’ pursuant to CPL 710.70 (2)” … . The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that “the Appellate Division may review an order denying a motion to suppress evidence where, as here, the contested evidence pertained to a count—contained in the same accusatory instrument as the count defendant pleaded guilty to—that was satisfied by the plea” … . The Court of Appeals remitted the matter to this Court to rule on defendant’s suppression contention.

Upon remittitur, we now agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized as a result of his unlawful detention on October 3, 2014 … . We further agree with defendant that such error was not harmless under the circumstances (see id. at 1424). We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress the physical evidence seized from defendant on October 3, 2014, and remit the matter to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v Holz, 2020 NY Slip Op 03345, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

You might also like
Failure to Strictly Comply with the Procedure Mandated by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Required Annulment of the Town’s Negative Declaration Re: the Construction of a Casino and Resort
SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ROBBERY THIRD AND ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTIONS REVERSED AS LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF ROBBERY SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move for Suppression Constituted Ineffective Assistance
THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR A VIDEOTAPE OF AN INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (ALLEGED) VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSE CASE, THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED BY A PRIVATE PARTY AND WAS DISCOVERABLE ONLY IF IT CONSTITUTED BRADY (EXCULPATORY) MATERIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT VIEW THE TAPE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS BRADY MATERIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DETERMINATION ALLOWING USE OF RESIDENTIAL STREETS TO ACCESS A CLAY MINING OPERATION REVERSED, NO DEMONSTRATION PROPERTY WAS WORTHLESS UNDER EXISTING ZONING.
WAIVER OF APPEAL OF THE UNDERLYING PLEA DOES NOT PROHIBIT APPEAL OF THE SENTENCE FOR A SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF PROBATION; NO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; APPELLATE COURT HAS POWER TO MODIFY A LEGAL SENTENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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

FEDERAL CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL MARINE INTERDICTION AGENT IS NOT A PEACE OFFICER... QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION...