You are here: / / AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL...
, ,

AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a probable cause hearing, determined the evidence revealed for the first time at trial called into serious question whether the search of defendant’s apartment was unlawful. Prior to trial the information provided to defendant gave the impression the apartment was entered and searched pursuant to a warrant. At trial the police testified they entered the apartment two hours before the search warrant was issued. The defendant was convicted of drug possession. The suppression motion stated the police entered the apartment without defendant’s permission. Given the limited and misleading information available to the defendant at the time the suppression motion was made, the allegations in the motion were sufficient to warrant a probable cause hearing. The appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was sent back for the hearing:

… [T]he Appellate Division “may not make its own finding of an independent source based upon trial testimony” … . Thus, we cannot hold that the denial of the Mapp/Dunaway hearing was proper, and the claim unpreserved, due to legal arguments pertaining to the lawfulness of the search and based on evidence adduced at trial, well after the lower court ruled on the motion to suppress.

… [H]ere, the trial testimony is being used solely to determine the context of defendant’s motion, the extent of her lack of access to information …, and the extent of information withheld from the motion court prior to making its decision to summarily deny defendant’s motion. … [W]e find that defendant’s motion should not have been summarily denied pursuant to CPL 710.60, and a hearing should have been conducted to make the necessary findings of fact. People v Esperanza, 2022 NY Slip Op 00383, First Dept 1-25-22

 

You might also like
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECOVER MEDICAID OVERPAYMENTS FROM PERSONAL CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS (FIRST DEPT).
PLANK USED TO CROSS GAP IN ROOF COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATED THE OPTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $11.4 MILLION IF THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A BONA FIDE PURCHASE OFFER; THE LANDLORD IN FACT RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER AND PLAINITFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION, BUT PAID $14.5 MILLION (FIRST DEPT). ​
OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES’ CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS A MERELY TECHNICAL DEFECT WHICH DID NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
Unlike a “State Human Rights Law” Cause of Action, a “New York City Human Rights Law” Cause of Action Is Supported If Racial Bias Played “Any Role” (As Opposed to a “Motivating and Substantial Role”) In the Discriminatory Action
SUBPOENAS RELATING TO CROSS CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED (FIRST 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

PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AS THEY SOUGHT TO... THE NOTICE OF CLAIM ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PORT AUTHORITY, WHICH IS A BISTATE...