You are here: / / ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN...
, ,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN FOUND IN A VEHICLE, THE COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL, THE SECOND DEPT DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, MATTER SENT BACK SO SUPREME COURT CAN ARTICULATE ITS REASONING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter to Supreme Court for the basis of its ruling on a suppression motion:

This Court is statutorily limited to reviewing errors or defects that “may have adversely affected the appellant” (CPL 470.15[1]), and thus has no power “to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court”… . The Court of Appeals has observed that, once the Appellate Division has rejected a trial court’s ruling on a particular issue, it may not proceed to consider other issues that might provide a basis for affirmance if they were not determined adversely to the appellant… .

Here, the defendant contends that the Supreme Court incorrectly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun, arguing that the inevitable discovery and search incident to a lawful arrest exceptions did not apply. The People contend, as they did before the Supreme Court, that the automobile exception applies. However, the court did not set forth the basis for its denial of the branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the gun. Furthermore, on this record, we cannot determine the unarticulated predicate for the court’s evidentiary ruling …  Therefore, in order to avoid exceeding our statutory authority pursuant to CPL 470.15(1), we hold the appeal in abeyance and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun. People v Thomas, 2018 NY Slip Op 08962, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

You might also like
THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1180 (d) (SPEEDING) WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT ON A DIFFERENT DATE AT THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S CALCULATIONS WERE BASED WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE REFEREE’S AFFIDAVIT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
Expert Testimony Should Not Have Been Precluded Based Upon the Timing of the Disclosure—Short Adjournment Would Have Eliminated Prejudice—New Trial Ordered
DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER WAS NEGLIGENT; THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT’S OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY DID NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPANY WHICH STAFFED THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PHYSICIANS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, AS OPPOSED TO EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM THE COMPANY WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR AT AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL HEARING IN THIS PATERNITY AND CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS OPERATED ON BY AN INDEPENDENT SURGEON; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXCEPTION APPLIED AND THE HOSPITAL WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE SURGEON’S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE (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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD AND MADE THE FINDINGS... THE PARTY WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY ENTERING THE INTERSECTION WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY...