You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION PAPERS RAISED A FACTUAL ISSUE REQUIRING...
,

DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION PAPERS RAISED A FACTUAL ISSUE REQUIRING A HEARING, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined defendant had raised a factual issue requiring a suppression hearing:

“When made before trial, suppression motions must be in writing, state the legal ground of the motion and contain sworn allegations of fact made by defendant or another person” … . A hearing may be denied “unless the papers submitted raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue” … .

Here, defendant specifically alleged that officers “responded to [the scene] after . . . defendant, or someone at his behest, called 911” and that defendant, upon their arrival, told them that he “found [the victim] on the stairs bleeding and was trying to help him.” Defendant alleged that, based on that information, “[t]he police removed [him] from the scene and placed him in the back of a police vehicle, and took his personal cell phone from him” without reasonable suspicion or probable cause justifying the intrusion. Although the People contended that defendant made other statements to the officers that heightened their level of suspicion and justified the intrusion, defendant’s motion papers disputed this assertion, alleging instead that, at the time of the intrusion, “the police knew nothing more than [that the victim] appeared to have been shot, and [that defendant] . . . had discovered him and summoned help while trying to give assistance at the scene.” Indeed, at oral argument on the motion, defendant further explained that he specifically disputed what information the police had at the time of the intrusion. We conclude that, under these circumstances, defendant sufficiently raised a factual issue necessitating a hearing … . People v White, 2021 NY Slip Op 01639, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON MOTHER’S PARAMOUR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
DEFENDANTS’ USE OF DOMAIN NAMES VERY SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF’S STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION AND CYBERSQUATTING (FOURTH DEPT).
Despite Broad General Language, the Release Applied Solely to the Property-Damage Claim Referenced In It and Not to Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Action
DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN “CLOSE PROXIMITY” TO THE DRUGS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “ROOM” OR “DRUG FACTORY” PRESUMPTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Petition by the District Attorney Against the Sentencing Judge Seeking Vacation of the Sentence Imposed, Because the District Attorney Did Not Agree to It, Dismissed—Granting the Petition Would Direct the Judge to Violate Criminal Procedure law 220.10(4) and Would Violate the Defendant’s Protection Against Double Jeopardy
An Issue Raised for the First Time on Appeal Will Not Be Considered Where the Defect Could Have Been Cured If Raised Below/Trial Court Can Grant Summary Judgment Based on an Unpleaded Defense
ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
A PROSECUTION WITNESS’S WRITTEN STATEMENT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE JUDGE’S USE OF THE PHRASE “POTENTIALLY AIDS” INSTEAD OF “INTENTIONALLY AIDS” IN THE ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY JURY INSTRUCTION PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH THE JURY INSTRUCTION ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE THREE-STEP BATSON PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED WHEN THE DEFENDANT OBJECTED... MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT PROVIDERS, WHO WERE TREATING MOTHER, DID NOT OWE A DUTY...