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
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED CONSIDERATION OF A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED.
Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff’s Actions Were Sole Proximate Cause of Fall—Plaintiff Was Using Stilts for Ceiling Work
A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION ABSENT AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OR OTHER DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE ZONING CODE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL, I.E. EVIDENCE OF HABIT, PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE EXERCISED BY THE PEOPLE, BUT THE NEXT STEPS IN THE BATSON PROCEDURE WERE NOT TAKEN, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO COMPLETE THE BATSON PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT). 
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AT THE DARDEN HEARING THAT THE INFORMANT EXISTED, THEREFORE THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MANAGER OF PLAINTIFF BAR PUSHED A MAN DOWN A SET OF STAIRS CAUSING FATAL INJURIES; THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY EXCLUSION IN DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED AND THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE BAR (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...