People v. Hayes, 221 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Hayes, 221 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Lattarulo (nysupct, 2009-09-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lattarulo
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2009 · confidence medium
People v Williams, 222 AD2d 468, 468 [2d Dept 1995]; People v Hayes, 221 AD2d 468, 468 [2d Dept 1995].) Therefore, the motion to suppress each of the statements is denied.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Criscitello
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
That proceeding included discussion of the factual issues underlying defendant’s claim of intoxication and, thus, defendant, who declined County Court’s express invitation to address the issue of her intoxication at the time of her plea, was given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the discussion of her claimed impairment (see People v King, 248 AD2d 639, 640 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 1009 [1998]; People v Hayes, 221 AD2d 468, 469 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 921 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Richard Hayes
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 13, 1995.
221 A.D.2d 468
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered March 5, 1993, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Santagata, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought to suppress his statement to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, Payton v New York (445 US 573), is inapplicable to arrests made outside of his home in his yard (see, People v Roe, 73 NY2d 1004; People v Keller, 148 AD2d 958).

The defendant’s contention that his statement was involuntary is without merit. Although the defendant was interviewed by police officers for as many as nine hours following his arrest, he was promptly read his Miranda rights, he was not subjected to continuous interrogation, and he was not denied sleep or food when requested, prior to obtaining his confession (see, People v Jackson, 178 AD2d 851).

The off-the-record pre-Sandoval conference before the defendant appeared in court did not require the defendant’s pres[*469] ence. The record indicates that the defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the discussion of the Sandoval issues when he was later produced (see, People v Hailey, 221 AD2d 466; People v Swift, 213 AD2d 355; People v Watson, 205 AD2d 398).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.