You are here: / / ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AFTER HE RESPONDED “NO SIR.”...
,

ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AFTER HE RESPONDED “NO SIR.” WHEN ASKED IF HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, vacating his plea, and granting part of the suppression motion, over a partial dissent, determined that all the statements defendant made after he responded “No sir” when asked if he was willing to answer questions should have been suppressed. The dissent argued statements made before defendant was read his Miranda rights should also be suppressed:

Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to suppress his post-Miranda statements inasmuch as they were made after he invoked his right to remain silent by answering “No, sir” when asked if he would be willing to answer questions after being advised of his Miranda rights. We agree. ” ‘[I]n order to terminate questioning, the assertion by a defendant of [the] right to remain silent must be unequivocal and unqualified’ ” … . Whether a defendant’s “request was ‘unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request[,] including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant’ ” … . Here, we conclude that defendant clearly communicated a desire to cease all questioning indefinitely when he responded “No, sir” to the verbal and written inquiries about whether he was willing to answer questions … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to suppress the holding cell statements, which were also made after defendant unequivocally and unqualifiedly asserted his right to remain silent. Contrary to the People’s assertion that the statements were made spontaneously at a time when the detective was seeking “pedigree information,” we conclude that the People did not establish that the detective’s questions “were reasonably related to the police’s administrative concerns” rather than “a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation” … . People v Sullivan, 2025 NY Slip Op 03494, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is asked whether he is willing to answer questions and answers “no,” any subsequent statements must be suppressed.​

 

You might also like
17-YEAR-OLD’S ARE STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS OF VICTIMS UNDER PENAL LAW 263.11, TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; RISK-LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE TRIABLE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT IN THE WALKWAY WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER THE DEFECT CAUSED THE SLIP AND FALL.
DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DIAGNOSIS AND A STATEMENT INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM SORA RISK-LEVEL TWO TO THREE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER AFTER HEARING GUN SHOTS DID NOT HAVE THE REASONABLE SUSPICION NEEDED FOR THE SEIZURE OF A VEHICLE; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
Party Represented by Counsel at a Scheduled Court Appearance Has Not Failed to Appear
DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, 35-YEAR SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH 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 EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS... THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE...