People v. Van Duser, 277 A.D.2d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Van Duser, 277 A.D.2d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Osman (nyappdiv, 2019-07-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Osman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant's further contention in appeal Nos. 1 and 3, trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to move for severance inasmuch as the counts were properly joined under CPL 200.20 (2) (a) and (b) and, therefore, "the court had no discretion to sever them" ( People v Van Duser [appeal No. 2], 277 AD2d 1034, 1035 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 739 [2001]; see CPL 200.20 [3]; People v Bongarzone , 69 NY2d 892, 895 [1987]; People v Lee , 275 AD2d 995, 997 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 966 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Roman
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2003 · confidence medium
(Id. at 895 [“the court lacked statutory authority to sever”], citing CPL 200.20 [3] and People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 7 [1982]; see also, People v Gaines, 293 AD2d 550 [2d Dept 2002]; People v Fontanez, 278 AD2d 933 [4th Dept 2000]; People v Van Duser, 277 AD2d 1034, 1035 [4th Dept 2000].) Defendant’s motion to sever is, accordingly, denied (without prejudice to renewal if the People reevaluate their position in light of the decision below).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Ottey
nyroccityct · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
(S ee People v Kohorst, 34 AD3d 1249 , 1250 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 947 [2007] [unlawful police entry into defendant’s home attenuated by defendant’s attempt to prevent police from arresting his wife]; People v Ellis, 4 AD3d 877 [4th Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 673 [2004] [unlawful police entry into defendant’s home attenuated by defendant’s threatening display of a weapon]; see also People v Van Duser, 277 AD2d 1034 , 1035 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 739 [2001] [“(T)he exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence of defendant’s commission of a new c…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Ellis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
Further, the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of what police saw and heard when defendant, in being confronted in his home following an alleged Payton violation, undertook the commission of a new and independent crime (see United States v Pryor, 32 F3d 1192, 1196 [1994]; United States v Waupekenay, 973 F2d 1533, 1537-1538 [1992] ; United States v Garcia-Jordan, 860 F2d 159, 160-161 [1988]; see also People v Van Duser, 277 AD2d 1034 , 1035 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 739 [2001]; People v Luffman, 233 AD2d 726, 729 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 943 [1997]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Robert Van Duser
Appeal No. 2.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 13, 2000.
277 A.D.2d 1034
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment resentencing him on his conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]), harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]), and disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [3]). Defendant[*1035] contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to sever the count of disorderly conduct; that defendant’s arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and that evidence obtained as a product of that arrest should have been suppressed; that the verdict finding defendant guilty of criminal contempt is against the weight of the evidence; that the court improperly limited cross-examination of the victim; and that the court improperly disallowed the testimony of a defense witness.

The court did not err in denying severance. The counts were properly joined under CPL 200.20 (2) (b), and the court had no discretion to sever them (see, CPL 200.20 [3]; People v Bongarzone, 69 NY2d 892, 895; see also, People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 7). The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion based on its finding that the victim had consented to the entry of the apartment, a finding not challenged by defendant. In any event, the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence of defendant’s commission of a new crime in the presence of the arresting officers (see, People v Luffman, 233 AD2d 726, 729, lv denied 89 NY2d 943; United States v Pryor, 32 F3d 1192, 1196; United States v Waupekenay, 973 F2d 1533, 1537; United States v Garcia-Jordan, 860 F2d 159, 160-161). The verdict finding defendant guilty of criminal contempt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Pizzaro, 272 AD2d 344, lv denied 95 NY2d 837; People v Johnson, 261 AD2d 557, lv granted 94 NY2d 824).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Parenti, J. — Criminal Contempt, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Law-ton, JJ.