You are here: / / THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE...
, ,

THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION WHEN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS BLOCKED BY A POLICE CAR; THE APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A RULING WHICH WAS NOT EXPLICIT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING WITHIN THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the suppression motion was properly granted because the police blocked defendant’s car before there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or danger to the public. The majority also concluded the issue could be decided on appeal in the absence of a specific ruling by the motion court by relying on the record for the context of the ultimate ruling:

Officer Cox’s conduct in stopping the police vehicle “directly in front of the driveway” in a position “blocking the location” where the Audi was stopped with the engine running “constituted a stop, which required reasonable suspicion that the defendant or other occupants of the vehicle were either involved in criminal activity or posed some danger to the police” … . Joyette, the driver of the Audi, could not have pulled out of the driveway due to the police vehicle blocking the driveway, and thus, the police conduct constituted a “‘significant interruption with an individual’s liberty of movement'” … .

Further, the People failed to present any evidence showing that Officer Cox and his fellow officers observed any criminal activity at the time Officer Cox blocked the Audi from leaving the driveway. * * *

While CPL 470.15 bars this Court from deciding an appeal on a ground not ruled upon by the trial court … , “nothing in the language of CPL 470.15(1) . . . prohibits an appellate court from considering the record and the proffer colloquy with counsel to understand the context of the trial court’s ultimate determination” … . Moreover, “where the trial court gives a reason [for its decision] and there is record support for inferences to be drawn from that reason, the Appellate Division does not act beyond the parameters legislatively set forth in CPL 470.15(1) when it considers those inferences” … . People v Joyette, 2023 NY Slip Op 04216, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: When the police blocked defendant’s car they did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Therefore the suppression motion was properly granted.

Practice Point: When a court’s ruling is not explicit the context of the ruling can be turned to by the appellate court to determine the exact nature of the ruling.

 

You might also like
​ THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED AN ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS THEREFORE APPLIED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS NO EXPRESS INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE AND THE FLO0R-CLEANING DEFENDANTS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE FLOOR-CLEANING DEFENDANTS WERE NEGLIGENT OR CAUSED THE INJURY; THEREFORE THE GROCERY STORE’S INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
CONVEYANCES OF REAL PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS FRAUDULENT PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW; RELATED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BASED UPON UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S HAND WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSED DOOR OF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).
THE BUILDING DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS INSPECTED AND FOUND TO BE DRY CLOSE IN TIME TO THE ALLEGED FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL EXPLAINED.
UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE DEFENDANT’S AGENCY DEFENSE; THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT IN THAT GUILTY AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS CAN NOT BE RECONCILED (SECOND DEPT).
TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST)... EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE PROPER CRITERIA...