49 N.Y.2d at 1013 People need do no “more than refuse to concede the truth of facts alleged by defendant for a (suppression) hearing to be held10 citing cases
- People v. Woods, 2026 NY Slip Op 02364 (N.Y. 2026). If the defendant's suppression motion contains a sufficient factual basis to support suppression, the People are entitled to a hearing if they merely "refuse to concede the truth of facts alleged by [the] defendant" (<i>People v Weaver</i>…
- People v. Ehinmiakhena, 2026 NY Slip Op 02363 (N.Y. 2026).Moreover, contrary to defendant's argument that the People's general denial that the stop was illegal was insufficient to create an issue of fact, the People need not do more "than refuse to concede the truth of facts alleged by [the] defe…
- People v. Perez, 2025 NY Slip Op 06451 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2025).Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not err in failing to grant summarily that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress a firearm and ammunition underlying his conviction ( see CPL 710.60 [2] [a]), inasmuch as the Pe…
- People v. Duran, 2025 NY Slip Op 50454(U) (2025).Although CPL § 710.30 does not require the People to serve notice if they intend to use a statement solely for impeachment on cross-examination ( see People v Rigo , 273 AD2d 258, 258 [2d Dept. 2000]; People v Rudolph , 1345 AD2d 539 , 540…
- People v. Giacopelli, 2024 NY Slip Op 50869(U) (2024). As stated by the Court of Appeals, "there must be a hearing whenever [the] defendant claims his statement[s] [were] involuntary no matter what facts he [or she] puts forth in support of that claim" ( People v Weaver , 49 NY2d 1012, 1013 [1…
- People v. Ventura-Almonte, 78 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010).In opposing defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana recovered from his car, the People “ submitt [ed] that such evidence was lawfully obtained and den[ied] all allegations to the contrary.” This was sufficient to meet their burden of…
- People v. Williams, 19 Misc. 3d 675 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2008).(People need do no “more than refuse to concede the truth of facts alleged by defendant for a (suppression) hearing to be held)
- People v. Credle, 28 A.D.3d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2006).Since defendant asserted that he was questioned and that his statements to a police officer were involuntary, and since, after summary denial of the motion, defendant pleaded guilty without either withdrawing the motion or waiving his righ…
- People v. Ortiz, 12 A.D.3d 779 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).County Court granted defendant’s motion to suppress his statements pursuant to CPL 710.60 (2) (b); thus, a hearing was rendered unnecessary (see People v Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012, 1013 [1980]).
- People v. Hall, 53 A.D.3d 1080 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2008).Although the People did not specifically refute the allegations of defendant in his motion papers, the People’s “consent to any Court ordered Huntley hearing” is “an acknowledgment that a disputed factual issue exists, thereby precluding s…
49 N.Y.2d at 1012 “there must be a hearing whenever the defendant claims his statements were involuntary no matter what facts he or she puts forth in support of that claim”0 citing cases
Other citing cases
- People v. Letts, 156 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1989).
- People v. Cardia, 133 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1987).
- People v. Min Chi Ma, 161 Misc. 2d 542 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994).
v.
Valerie Weaver, Appellant
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Clearly and explicitly CPL 710.60 (subd 4) requires ("the court * * * must conduct”) that a hearing be held and findings essential to a suppression motion be made whenever the court does not determine the motion pursuant to subdivisions 2 or 3. Subdivision 2 mandates a summary grant when the People concede the facts or stipulate not to use the evidence, neither of which is here true. Subdivision 3 permits a summary denial if the motion papers do not set forth a legal basis for the motion or the facts alleged do not support the ground advanced, but expressly provides that the absence of factual basis does not permit denial of a motion to suppress a statement claimed to have been involuntarily made to a law enforcement official. Thus, in the latter case there must be a hearing whenever defendant claims his statement was involuntary no matter what facts he puts forth in support of that claim.
The reason for requiring a hearing in the latter case is, no doubt, that to do otherwise would be to shift the burden of proof of voluntariness from the People to the defendant. But the fact that the People have that burden does not mandate the conclusion that to obtain a hearing on voluntariness they should have to do more than refuse to concede the truth of facts alleged by defendant for a hearing to be held. Here the People’s affidavit expressly stated that "the allegations surrounding the statement are controverted.”
People v Gruden (42 NY2d 214) does not require that the People have done more, for as the Appellate Division noted and as we pointed out in People v Dean (45 NY2d 651, 656; see, also, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 438), in Gruden (p 215) the People "did not dispute the facts alleged in the[*1014] defendants’ motion papers.” Indeed, in Dean an oral statement of opposition in the courtroom was held sufficient even though no papers or records in opposition were submitted. Here the paper filed by the People made clear their opposition. That was enough, but there was more. The prosecutor both advised the Trial Judge during a chambers conference what he proposed to prove and in open court informed the Judge that he could obtain the affidavit of the police officer-witness substantiating those facts within 15 minutes. It was, therefore, as the Appellate Division ruled, an error of law for the Trial Judge to grant the motion summarily.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.