You are here: / / THE POLICE WERE ALLOWED INTO THE VESTIBULE OF A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT...
,

THE POLICE WERE ALLOWED INTO THE VESTIBULE OF A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT WERE NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER THE APARTMENT WHERE DEFENDANT WAS SEIZED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the police were only given permission to enter the vestibule of a two-family residence, not the apartment where defendant was seized:

Well before daybreak, four armed officers knocked repeatedly on the exterior door and window of a two-family residence. Someone responded by coming to the exterior door and opening it. The officers identified themselves as police, the person moved aside, and the officers entered the vestibule. Through the doorway of the downstairs apartment, they saw the person they wished to arrest, entered that apartment, and arrested him. The question before us is whether the suppression court should have granted Mr. Cuencas’s [defendant’s] motion to suppress for lack of consent for police to enter the apartment. * * *

… [T]he officers never sought consent to enter Mr. Cuencas’s apartment — only to enter the common vestibule to speak the person who answered the exterior door. The record shows that there were separate doors inside the vestibule, one for each of the two apartments in the building, each bearing a lock, and that each door was open. When the People asked Detective Fogelman to describe how he perceived the building upon his arrival at 5:30 AM, he testified that “It may have had two apartments, an upstairs and a downstairs.” Detective Fogelman asked for consent to enter through the exterior door into the vestibule, not into either of the two apartments, and it is not disputed that Mr. Cuencas’s apartment had a door separating it from the vestibule. People v Cuencas, 2023 NY Slip Op 05974, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The person who answered the door allowed the police to enter the vestibule of a two-family residence. But consent to enter the vestibule did not constitute consent to enter the first-floor apartment where defendant was seized. The suppression motion should have been granted.

 

You might also like
Post-Judgment Restraining Order Served On a New York Branch of a Foreign Bank, Pursuant to the Separate Entity Rule, Cannot Extend to Assets Held in Branches of the Bank Which Are Outside of New York
Reversing Its Prior Decision in this Case, the Court of Appeals Determined the “Servidone” Rule Is to Be Followed in New York/An Insurer Which Has Breached Its Duty to Defend the Insured May Rely On Policy Exclusions to Escape Its Duty to Indemnify the Insured
THE FORMER SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PTSD STEMMED FROM A SERIES OF INTERACTIONS WITH A CO-EMPLOYEE OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN “ACCIDENT;” SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (ADR) (CT APP).
THE STATUTE PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS ON PAROLE FROM BEING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (CT APP). ​
THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO STEAL TWO CANS OF RED BULL WHEN HE ENTERED THE CVS; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF FELONY BURGLARY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, NOTING THAT THE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE CHARGED PETTY LARCENY OR TRESPASS, THEREBY SAVING THE STATE THE MILLION DOLLARS IT COST TO INCARCERATE THE HOMELESS, MENTALLY ILL AND DRUG-ADDICTED DEFENDANT FOR AN ATTEMPT TO STEAL ITEMS WORTH $6 (CT APP).
AFTER THE SENTENCE WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF A CHARGE THAT DID NOT GO TO THE JURY, THE JUDGE IMPOSED THE SAME SENTENCE, SECOND SENTENCE WAS NOT VINDICTIVE, FAILURE TO OBJECT NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
Apartment Buildings Used to House Actors and Staff of a Youth and Summer Theater Entitled to Exemption from Real Property Tax Under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL 420-a)—Property Used to Further “Educational, Moral and Mental Improvement”
1961 Royalties-Agreement Between Duke Ellington and Music Publishers Was Not Ambiguous and Could Not Be Interpreted to Refer to Parties (“Affiliates” of the Music Publishers) Which Did Not Exist In 1961—Therefore the Ellington Estate Was Not Entitled to a 50% Share of the Revenues Earned by Foreign Subpublishers With Which the Original Music Publishers Have Affiliated Since 1961

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

PETITIONER, THE PRESIDENT AND MAJORITY STOCK HOLDER OF A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,... THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVERRULING PRECEDENT, DETERMINED THE AUTOPSY REPORTS WERE...