People v. Volpe, 457 N.E.2d 794 (N.Y. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Volpe, 457 N.E.2d 794 (N.Y. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Bradshaw, 76 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010)
How cited ↗
Cited for
60 N.Y.2d at 805 having failed to establish that their entry into the common areas of the locked, restricted access multiple-unit dwelling was authorized. Examination of the…1 citing caseopening of page *805 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Bradshaw, 76 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Consequently, the defendant failed to preserve any claim that, at the time of the lineup, he was not lawfully in police custody because the Queens arrest was unlawful (see People v Vasquez, 66 NY2d 968, 970 [1985], cert denied 475 US 1109…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
John Volpe, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 27, 1983.
Published opinion
457 N.E.2d 794
1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3487
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Barry A. Schwartz and Bernard F. Ferrera for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (<Jeanne E. Zunich and Amyjane Rettew of counsel), for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye Concur.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Police officers entered defendant’s apartment without a warrant after a Federal agent and the officers overheard incriminating conversations from inside the apartment. Defendant argues that a finding of probable cause cannot be sustained because the agent and officers were not lawfully present in the hallway outside his apartment,[*805] having failed to establish that their entry into the common areas of the locked, restricted access multiple-unit dwelling was authorized. Examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals, however, that the legality of these officers’ presence in the building was never questioned by defendant and that argument is thus not preserved for review by this court (People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029). To the extent defendant has argued that the information available to the officers was otherwise insufficient to support the finding of probable cause and exigent circumstances for the warrantless entry, he has failed to raise a reviewable issue of law, given the affirmance of the suppression court’s findings on these issues (see People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.