People v. Miller, 268 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
People v. Miller, 268 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Fowler (nyappdiv, 2012-12-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fowler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]; People v Miller, 268 AD2d 600, 600-601 [2000]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fowler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]; People v Miller, 268 AD2d 600, 600-601 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Joseph
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 2012 · confidence medium
The police may not, however, use tactics that are so fundamentally unfair so as to deprive the defendant of due process (see id.-, People v Jaeger, 96 AD3d 1172 [3d Dept 2012]; People v Gutierrez, 96 AD3d 1455 [4th Dept 2012]; Dishaw, 30 AD3d at 690-691 ; People v McCoy, 284 AD2d 554, 554-555 [2d Dept 2001]; People v Miller, 268 AD2d 600, 601 [2d Dept 2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
McKinley Miller
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 31, 2000.
268 A.D.2d 600
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 897
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered September 15, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Juvilar, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to supress statements he made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the statements he made to law enforcement officials were involuntary. It is undisputed that the defendant was not threatened,[*601] abused, or otherwise mistreated by the police (see, People v Croney, 121 AD2d 558, 559). There is no evidence that the defendant requested an attorney at any time, that he was deprived of food or drink, or that he was subjected to persistent and overbearing interrogation or deception so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process (see, People v Padilla, 133 AD2d 353, 354). Additionally, the hearing court found that the defendant had twice been advised of his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them prior to making both his oral and videotaped statements (see, People v Padilla, supra; People v Croney, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and S. Miller, JJ., concur.