85 N.Y.2d at 953 should have recused himself from ruling on the validity of a search warrant he issued while sitting as a Town Court Justice, and that the Judge’s failure to…5 citing cases
- Willis v. State, No. 253, 2022 (Del. July 24, 2023).publishedSee, e.g., In re C.M., 103 A.3d at 1202 (stating that “it is widely accepted that a judge 16 Although a “best practices” approach suggests to us that the judicial officer ruling on the issuance of a warrant preferably would not be the same…
- People v. Lindsey, 2019 NY Slip Op 4049 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2019).publishedIn any event, were this argument preserved for our review, we would find it to be patently without merit ( see People v McCann , 85 NY2d 951, 953 [1995]; People v Barone , 109 AD2d 1075, 1076-1077 [1985]).
- People v. Chisholm, 995 N.E.2d 164 (N.Y. 2013).published While admissions against penal interest may be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause (see People v McCann, 85 NY2d 951, 953 [1995]), “Much admissions are not guarantees of truthfulness and they should be accepted only after car…
- People v. Bornstein, 40 Misc. 3d 271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013).published(People v McCann, 85 NY2d 951, 953 [1995].) Nor did a Family Court judge abuse her discretion when she refused to recuse herself from a custody modification proceeding in which the father’s misuse of alcohol was a key issue despite the fac…
- People v. Brown, 62 A.D.3d 1089 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).publishedAlthough the application relied in part upon information provided to police by Jones, that information was not necessarily unreliable since it was based upon Jones’s personal involvement with defendant and Jones’s statement was against his…
650 N.E.2d at 854 trial judge not required to recuse himself from determining validity of search warrant he issued3 citing cases
- State v. Brooks, 855 So. 2d 593 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).published“In Stokes v. State, 853 S.W.2d 227, 242 (Tex.App.1993) (citations omitted [in Wallace]), the court noted that it has been held in numerous Texas cases ‘that the mere fact that a judge authorized arrest and search warrants involved in a ca…
- People v. Antoine, No. 1-00-4116 Rel (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Nov. 13, 2002).published(trial judge not required to recuse himself from determining validity of search warrant he issued)
- Wallace v. State, 741 So. 2d 938 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).publishedIn Stokes v. State, 853 S.W.2d 227, 242 (Tex.App.1993) (citations omitted), the court noted that it has been held in numerous Texas cases "that the mere fact that a judge authorized arrest and search warrants involved in a case is not a ba…
85 N.Y.2d at 952 cited at this page2 citing cases
- People v. Fleegle, 20 A.D.3d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedAbsent a legal disqualification (see Judiciary Law § 14), the recusal decision is within the discretion of the trial judge (see People v McCann, 85 NY2d 951, 952-953 [1995]; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]).
- People v. Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03699 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2021).publishedEven assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved for our review his further contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the court erred in failing to recuse itself, we conclude that "the record does not support his claim of bias on t…
Other citing cases
- Gilman v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 118 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).published
- People v. Story, 68 A.D.3d 1737 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2009).published
- People v. D'Amico, 296 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2002).published
- People v. Catanzaro, 236 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1997).published
v.
Calvin D. McCann, Appellant
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant contends that the Trial Judge in this case[*953] should have recused himself from ruling on the validity of a search warrant he issued while sitting as a Town Court Justice, and that the Judge’s failure to recuse constituted reversible error. We disagree. Nothing in Judiciary Law § 14 compels such recusal. The decision is a matter of individual conscience for the court (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405; see also, People v Liberatore, 79 NY2d 208, 217 [a Judge may entertain a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant he or she has issued]; People v Tambe, 71 NY2d 492, 506 [a Judge issuing a search or eavesdropping warrant may entertain a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to it]). We additionally reject defendant’s argument that a rule prohibiting Judges from entertaining motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrants they have issued is necessary to protect the integrity of trials. "There is no basis to conclude that [Judges who review their own search warrants] fail to give suppression motions anything less than fair and impartial consideration and further review is available by the Appellate Division which possesses the same power in such matters as does the suppression court” (People v Tambe, supra, at 506).
In addition, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. The application for the search warrant contained a detailed signed statement by a codefendant, Charles Burkett, which was itself sufficient to establish probable cause. Both the basis of Burkett’s information and his reliability could be inferred from the statement because Burkett made the statement based on his own observations and involvement with the crime, against his own penal interests, and with the express understanding that making a false written statement was a crime (see, People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 403-404; People v Comforto, 62 NY2d 725; People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to support defendant’s present claim that Burkett’s statement was the product of a search conducted the day before the statement was given. Thus, we need not address the legality of that search.
We have examined defendant’s other claims and find them to be unpreserved, without merit, or beyond the review power of this Court.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.