You are here: / / A SUPPRESSION MOTION CANNOT BE DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE...
,

A SUPPRESSION MOTION CANNOT BE DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, holding the appeal in abeyance, noted that a suppression motion may not be denied on a ground not raised by the People:

The motion to suppress should not have been denied on a ground not raised by the People. It is unclear to what extent the suppression court considered and credited the People’s argument regarding probable cause or whether the search was outside of the Fourth Amendment’s purview under the circumstances. Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for determination, based on the hearing minutes, of the issues raised at the hearing, but not decided … . People v Hatchett, 2021 NY Slip Op 04282, First Dept 7-8-21

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE POSSESSION OF THE MORTGAGE, AS OPPOSED TO THE NOTE, AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION, EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S STANDING (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS OF A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE MADE “UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF” DO NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGED VALID CAUSES OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD AND AIDING AND ABETTING CONVERSION AGAINST A BANK WHICH PROVIDED A LETTER TO PLAINTIFF STATING DEFENDANT MAINTAINED ENOUGH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS TO COVER A POST-DATED CHECK FOR OVER $400,000 (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO A FLOOR; HIS WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT GUARDING HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIED; ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT; LABOR LAW 200, 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, EVENT NOT RELATED TO THE FORCE OF GRAVITY.
There Is No “Imminent Litigation” Requirement for the Application of the “Common-Interest Privilege”—Documents Generated During Merger Negotiations Among Two Corporations and Their Counsel May, Therefore, Be Protected by the Privilege, Which Is an Exception to the Rule that the Presence of a Third Party at a Communication Between Counsel and Client Destroys the Privilege

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

A SETTLEMENT EMAIL WILL BE DEEMED SIGNED BY THE SENDING ATTORNEY WITHOUT RETYPING... THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE...