You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE, SUPPRESSION...

DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress his statements should not have been granted. The People demonstrated defendant was not in custody when the statements were made:

“In determining whether a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, [t]he test is not what the defendant thought, but rather what a reasonable [person], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant’s position’ ” … . We reject defendant’s contention that the People failed to meet their “burden of showing that [he] voluntarily went to the [detectives’ office] where he allegedly made the inculpatory statements”… . Indeed, the People “properly demonstrated by unchallenged hearsay testimony” that defendant voluntarily accompanied the officers to the detectives’ office for questioning and, inasmuch as defendant did not dispute that fact in either his motion papers or his arguments on the motion, that testimony was sufficient to sustain the People’s burden … . We further conclude that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements because he was informed that he was not under arrest and that he would be going home that day, he was not handcuffed, he was permitted to leave the interview room several times, he never asked to leave the office nor was he told that he could not leave, and he was not arrested that day … . People v Bell-Scott, 2018 NY Slip Op 04192, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS,  DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))​

You might also like
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to Considerable Testimony About Prior Consistent Statements Made by the Victim Concerning Alleged Sexual Abuse Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Favor of Defendant Who Had the Right of Way When Plaintiff Pulled Into Defendant’s Path from a Stop, Even Though there Was Evidence Defendant Was Travelling Slightly Over the Speed Limit/No Evidence Accident Would Have Been Avoided Had the Defendant Been Traveling at the Speed Limit
FATHER AND MOTHER SUBMITTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHILDREN WERE CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; FATHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS PETITION TO TERMINATE HIS CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE OFFICER INJURED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND THE CITY SEEKING RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS MADE STEMMING FROM THE OFFICER’S INJURY MUST SHARE THE $100,000 “PER PERSON” INSURANCE-POLICY LIMIT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE BURGLARY PLEA COLLOQUY DID NOT INDICATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME OTHER THAN TRESPASS IN THE PREMISES; THEREFORE THE COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME; PRESERVATION FOR APPEAL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS GENRE OF ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
FORMER AND CURRENT SECTION 413 OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW REQUIRES THE REPORTING OF ANY SUSPECTED INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY UPON A CHILD, WHICH INCLUDES SEXUAL ABUSE, EVEN WHEN THE PERSON SUSPECTED OF THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND THEIR COUNTERCLAIM FOR DEFAMATION, DEFAMATION PER SE AND DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE... DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ALLEGATIONS IN...