People v. Correa, 55 A.D.3d 1380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Correa, 55 A.D.3d 1380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Rodriguez (nyappdiv, 2020-02-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rodriguez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant's contention, the fact that the police immediately "pushed or guided" him three feet inside the apartment after he was arrested in order to search him does not establish that the arrest itself occurred inside the house in violation of the Payton rule ( see People v Correa , 55 AD3d 1380, 1380 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]; see also People v Rosario , 179 AD2d 442, 442 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 1053 [1992]).
discussed Cited "see" EVANS, SAQUAN, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Finally, although defendant contends that he was illegally arrested without a warrant in violation of Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 ), the evidence establishes that defendant was arrested in the threshold of his apartment, and thus “defendant’s arrest did not implicate Payton rights” (People v Reynoso, 309 AD2d 769, 770 , affd 2 NY3d 820 ; see People v Correa, 55 AD3d 1380, 1380 , lv denied 11 NY3d 924 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Finally, although defendant contends that he was illegally arrested without a warrant in violation of Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]), the evidence establishes that defendant was arrested in the threshold of his apartment, and thus “defendant’s arrest did not implicate Payton rights” (People v Reynoso, 309 AD2d 769 , 770 [2003], affd 2 NY3d 820 [2004]; see People v Correa, 55 AD3d 1380, 1380 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Finally, although defendant contends that he was illegally arrested without a warrant in violation of Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]), the evidence establishes that defendant was arrested in the threshold of his apartment, and thus “defendant’s arrest did not implicate Payton rights” (People v Reynoso, 309 AD2d 769 , 770 [2003], affd 2 NY3d 820 [2004]; see People v Correa, 55 AD3d 1380, 1380 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." The People v. Sean Garvin
NY · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Perhaps because, as Supreme Court recently bemoaned, "no New York case since Payton appears to have addressed the issue" of what constitutes a "threshold" (People v Mendoza, 49 Misc3d 1007, 1012 [Sup Ct, NY County 2015]), the current rule has failed to protect New York citizens from illegal searches (Kozlowski, 69 NY2d 761 ; Riffas, 120 AD3d 1438 ; Mendoza, 49 Misc3d 1007 [finding that police had violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights]; see also Correa, 55 AD3d 1380 ; Reynoso, 309 AD2d 769 ; Anderson, 146 AD2d 638 [declining to suppress evidence gathered by police who breached the th…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Christian A. Correa
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 3, 2008.
55 A.D.3d 1380
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered June 22, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]), defendant contends that reversal is required based on a Payton violation. We reject that contention. The evidence at the Payton hearing established that, when the police approached defendant’s house, defendant was standing in the open doorway and that the police entry into the house was minimal, to enable them to take control of defendant before removing him from the house. “The doorway to a private house is a public place for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, since a defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy while standing there, exposed to public view . . . Since the defendant was arrested at the threshold of his residence, the defendant’s arrest did not implicate Payton rights” (People v Reynoso, 309 AD2d 769, 770 [2003], affd 2 NY3d 820 [2004]; see People v Brown, 13 AD3d 1194 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 828 [2005]; People v Schiavo, 212 AD2d 816 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 942 [1995]). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the police entered defendant’s house, we conclude that the evidence at the Payton hearing established that there were exigent circumstances to justify their warrantless entry (see generally People v Kilgore, 21 AD3d 1257, 1257-1258 [2005] ). The evidence established that the police responded to defendant’s house while investigating a complaint that defendant had recently threatened his girlfriend by pointing a gun at her head, there was reason for the police to believe that defendant was still armed, there was a showing of probable cause, defendant was present at the house at the time of the arrest, and the police entered peacefully. Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey and Pine, JJ.