green
Positive treatment
Issue: police inquiryNY ↗
Issue: administration of the blood testNY ↗
15.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Meadows
Given this, and viewing the suppression hearing evidence in its entirety, we conclude that the court correctly concluded that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel ( see People v Fridman , 71 NY2d 845, 846 [1988]; People v Engelhardt , 94 AD3d 1238, 1241 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 960 [2012]; compare People v Jemmott , 116 AD3d 1244, 1247 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Silburn
Here, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s request to proceed pro se was equivocal, and was conditioned on the assistance 1 In the context of a defendant’s constitutional right to counsel, we stated that a defendant asking the police “should I speak to a lawyer” did not amount to an unequivocal request for an attorney, such that his right to counsel did not attach and the statement he made to the police was not in violation of the federal and state constitutions (see People v Hicks, 69 NY2d 969, 970 [1987]; see also People v Mitchell, 2 NY3d 272, 276 [200…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Phoenix
Under these circumstances, and according deference to Supreme Court’s credibility assessment that Wise “appeared frank, candid, and trustworthy, and his testimony had the general force and flavor of credibility” and that the video of the interrogation was authentic and reliable (see People v Kidd, 112 AD3d 994, 996 [2013]; People v Kuklinski, 24 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 758 [2006], lv denied on reconsideration 7 NY3d 814 [2006]), we will not disturb Supreme Court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to have an attorney present (see Peopl…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Phoenix
Under these circumstances, and according deference to Supreme Court’s credibility assessment that Wise “appeared frank, candid, and trustworthy, and his testimony had the general force and flavor of credibility” and that the video of the interrogation was authentic and reliable (see People v Kidd, 112 AD3d 994, 996 [2013]; People v Kuklinski, 24 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 758 [2006], lv denied on reconsideration 7 NY3d 814 [2006]), we will not disturb Supreme Court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to have an attorney present (see Peopl…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Oxley
Considering all of the circumstances, the court reasonably found that defendant did not make an unequivocal request for counsel to the authorities (see People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838, 839 [1995]; People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845, 846 [1988]; People v Thompson, 153 AD2d 456, 460-461 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 867 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hilts
In any event, we note that defendant was not in custody when he allegedly claimed to a cooperating witness in the parking lot outside the police station that “I got an attorney” and ‘T hired one,” and thus those alleged claims of defendant did not result in the in delible attachment of the right to counsel (see People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845, 846 [1988]; People v Holman, 249 AD2d 947 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 899 [1998]; see also People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318, 320-324 [2003]; Glover, 87 NY2d at 839 ; People v West, 81 NY2d 370, 373-374 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brandon
(See, e.g., People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845, 846 [1988] [defendant’s suggestions that he might want to consult with his lawyer found not to be an unequivocal assertion of right to counsel]; People v Hendricks, 90 NY2d 956, 957 [1997] [defendant’s statement “I’ll talk to you but I’m not signing anything else” in response to officer’s post -Miranda request for a written statement was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to silence].) “Whether a particular request is or is not unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circums…
examined
Cited "see"
People v. Arneo
(3×)
The court went on to explain that "Generally, remarks that are subject to numerous objective interpretations or a defendant's mere 'suggestion that counsel might be desired ... will not suffice' (People v. Mitchell , 2 NY3d 272, 276 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 427 , 810 N.E.2d 879 [2004]; see People v. Fridman , 71 NY2d 845, 846 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 737 , 522 N.E.2d 1035 [1988]; People v. Wade , 296 AD2d 720, 720 , 745 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2002] )" [FN5] In the instant case the defendant was in custody from the time she was arrested on the scene following the completion of the roadside sobriety tests.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Dearmas
Defendant's "comment that he was going to speak with a lawyer was not an assertion of a desire not to respond to questions without counsel and at most manifested a desire to consult with an attorney" about certain issues related to the availability of a plea agreement ( People v Carrier , 270 AD2d 800, 801 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 864 [2000] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ibarrondo , 208 AD3d 1647 , 1648 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1111 [2023]; see generally People v Fridman , 71 NY2d 845, 846 [1988]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Higgins
Generally, remarks that are subject to numerous objective interpretations or a defendant’s mere “suggestion that counsel might be desired . . . will not suffice” (People v Mitchell, 2 NY3d 272, 276 [2004]; see People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845, 846 [1988]; People v Wade, 296 AD2d 720, 720 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Jackson
Further, the record demonstrates that defendant’s claimed invocation of his right to counsel did not relate to the matter under investigation and did not occur while he was in police custody (see People v Vila, 208 AD2d 781 , 782 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 867 [1995]; see also People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845, 846 [1988]; see generally People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318, 321 [2003]; People v West, 81 NY2d 370, 373-374 [1993]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Jackson
Further, the record demonstrates that defendant’s claimed invocation of his right to counsel did not relate to the matter under investigation and did not occur while he was in police custody (see People v Vila, 208 AD2d 781 , 782 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 867 [1995]; see also People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845, 846 [1988]; see generally People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318, 321 [2003]; People v West, 81 NY2d 370, 373-374 [1993]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
JACKSON, AARON, PEOPLE v
Further, the record demonstrates that defendant’s claimed invocation of his right to counsel did not relate to the matter under investigation and did not occur while he was in police custody (see People v Vila, 208 AD2d 781, 782 , lv denied 85 NY2d 867 ; see also People v Fridman, 71 NY2d 845, 846 ; see generally People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318, 321 ; People v West, 81 NY2d 370, 373-374 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Charles Fridman
v.
Charles Fridman
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 24, 1988.
522 N.E.2d 1035
1988 N.Y. LEXIS 183
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Mark F. Pomerantz, David T. Grudberg and Herald Price Fahringer for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Ann M. Donnelly and Norman Barclay of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 30 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In the context of the conversation between the defendant and the police, the defendant’s suggestions that he or the police might want to consult with his attorney with respect to certain matters cannot be said to constitute an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel. In addition, we note that the defendant was not in custody, was in his own office and continued the discussion with the police as if the suggestions had never been made.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Dillon* concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.