People v. Ellis, 77 A.D.3d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
People v. Ellis, 77 A.D.3d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Herman v. Wieber (nyed, 2022-03-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Herman v. Wieber
E.D.N.Y · 2022 · confidence medium
Mar. 28, 2017) (citing People v. Ellis, 908 N.Y.S.2d 687, 688 (App. Div. 2010); People v. Brazier, 5 N.Y.S.3d 329 (App. Term. 2014)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McKeefry v. Town of Bedford
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · confidence medium
See People v. Taylor, 913 N.Y.S.2d 308, 312 (App. Div. 2010) (Leventhal, J., dissenting); People v. Ellis, 908 N.Y.S.2d 687, 688 (App. Div. 2010).16 Accordingly, the malicious prosecution claim is dismissed. b.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Darryl Ellis
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 19, 2010.
77 A.D.3d 496
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered October 16, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence established that defendant’s 911 call in which he reported an assault that did not occur was a gratuitous report within the meaning of Penal Law § 240.50 (3). No one compelled defendant to place the call; defendant’s supervisor, at most, suggested that he do so.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statement, in which he admitted to the Department of Investigation that he fabricated the assault. Defendant was never told explicitly or implicitly that his failure to answer questions would result in his termination from public employment (compare Garrity v New Jersey, 385 US 493 [1967]). Moreover, there was no evidence that defendant could be terminated for refusing to make a statement about an incident that did not relate to the performance of his official duties.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unavailing (see People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213 [2010]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.