You are here: / / SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS...
,

SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the seizure of credit cards from under the hood of defendant’s car was not the result of an illegal search. The police had validly impounded the car and were following a procedure which required that the car be disabled to thwart theft:

Police entry into the car and under its hood was reasonable because it was done in compliance with the Police Department Patrol Guide’s safeguarding procedure, requiring police to disable all vehicles being safeguarded, in order to prevent theft. The limited entry into the car was done to protect the owner’s property, and was not an attempt to search for incriminating evidence, as shown by the fact that, upon discovering the credit cards in the hood, the police did not search any other part of the vehicle … . The officers’ failure to perform this safeguarding procedure within the 48-hour period allowed by the Patrol Guide, after which a vehicle is to be moved from the precinct to the Property Clerk’s storage facility, was a minor deviation from procedure, and did not undermine the reasonableness of the limited search, where the remainder of the procedure was followed and, as noted, there was no indication that the police were using the procedure as a pretext to search for incriminating evidence … . People v Keita, 2018 NY Slip Op 04847, First Dept 6-28-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT)

You might also like
Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No Settlement—Attorney Lost Contingency Fee Based on Settlement Amount.
PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX.
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE PAINT CONTAINED LEAD DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WAS PAINTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1960; HOWEVER QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LEAD PAINT AND THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PAINT AND INFANT PLAINTIFF’S LEAD POISONING, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE NYC SIDEWALK LAW (MAKING ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE) BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY IS OWNER-OCCUPIED; HOWEVER THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT IS LIABLE UNDER THE COMMON-LAW “SPECIAL USE” DOCTRINE; DEFENDANT USED THE SIDEWALK AS A DRIVEWAY FOR HIS GARAGE (FIRST DEPT).
WHEN SERVICE OF PROCESS IS MAILED TO A BUSINESS ADDRESS, AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT INDICATE THE CONTENTS ARE LITIGATION-RELATED; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS WAS BOTH HIS RESIDENTIAL AND HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED THE CONTENTS WERE LITIGATION-RELATED; THE RESIDENTIAL MAILING RULES APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).
A Counteroffer Extinguishes the Initial Offer Which Cannot Be Unilaterally Revived by Subsequent Acceptance

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

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS COLLATERAL... COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID...