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
Analytical Criteria Re: the Validity of a Stipulation Explained
INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY FOR DNA TEST RESULTS.
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
A NURSING HOME CAN BRING A PLENARY ACTION SOUNDING IN BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE AGENCY WHICH DENIED MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR A RESIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING A HEAVY COMPRESSOR ON A PLANK OVER A TWO-FOOT-DEEP TRENCH WHEN THE PLANK BROKE; THE INJURY WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS AN ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO BRING A COMMON-LAW ACTION TO ENJOIN ZONING VIOLATIONS BY VIRTUE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES.
AFTER OBTAINING AN UNPAID JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY SUED THE INSURER WHICH HAD DISCLAIMED COVERAGE ALLEGING THE INSURED HAD REFUSED TO COOPERATE; THE PROOF OF THE INSURED’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COOPERATE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (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 © 2026 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...