pretrial suppression hearing in New York

2025This time is excluded ( see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]; [*6]People v Rene , 292 AD2d 302, 303 [1st Dept 2002]). (0 days charged. 47 total days charged.) On January 28, 2025, defense counsel was ill and did not appear.

2025This time is excluded ( see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]; [*6]People v Rene , 292 AD2d 302, 303 [1st Dept 2002]). (0 days charged. 47 total days charged.) On January 28, 2025, defense counsel was ill and did not appear.

2019Pursuant to statute, "hearsay evidence is admissible to establish any material fact" at a pretrial suppression hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]; see People v Edwards , 95 NY2d 486, 491 [2000]; see also United States v Raddatz , 447 US 667, 679 [1980]).

2015Although the Supreme Court found Schmidt to be credible, it concluded that the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation was violated because Olivieri did not testify as to the circumstances of the vehicle stop. *914 Pursuant to statute, “hearsay evidence is admissible to establish any material fact” at a pretrial suppression hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]; see People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 491 [2000]; see also United States v Raddatz, 447 US 667, 679 [1980]; United States v Matlock, 415 US 164, 174-175 [1974]).

2016“The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (People v Taylor, 120 AD3d 519, 520 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Wheeler, 2 NY3d 370, 374 [2004]; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]).

2014The defendant’s contention that the testimony of the arresting officer at the pretrial suppression hearing was incredible and patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Taylor, 120 AD3d 519, 520 [2014]).

2012Further, the proper purpose of a pretrial suppression hearing is primarily to address alleged constitutional and statutory violations and to ensure a fair trial (see CPL 710.20; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d at 425).

2012Further, the proper purpose of a pretrial suppression hearing is primarily to address alleged constitutional and statutory violations and to ensure a fair trial (see CPL 710.20; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d at 425).

2012Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that the defendant’s guilt was established by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).

2012Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that the defendant’s guilt was established by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).

2019Pursuant to statute, "hearsay evidence is admissible to establish any material fact" at a pretrial suppression hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]; see People v Edwards , 95 NY2d 486, 491 [2000]; see also United States v Raddatz , 447 US 667, 679 [1980]).

2015Although the Supreme Court found Schmidt to be credible, it concluded that the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation was violated because Olivieri did not testify as to the circumstances of the vehicle stop. *914 Pursuant to statute, “hearsay evidence is admissible to establish any material fact” at a pretrial suppression hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]; see People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 491 [2000]; see also United States v Raddatz, 447 US 667, 679 [1980]; United States v Matlock, 415 US 164, 174-175 [1974]).

2016To the extent that the warrant application contains an incomplete sentence, any failure in this regard constituted a technical violation, which does not require the suppression of evidence (see People v Silverstein, 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989], cert denied 493 US 1019 [1990]; People v Lauber, 36 AD3d 949, 950 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]). .

2016To the extent that the warrant application contains an incomplete sentence, any failure in this regard constituted a technical violation, which does not require the suppression of evidence (see People v Silverstein, 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989], cert denied 493 US 1019 [1990]; People v Lauber, 36 AD3d 949, 950 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]). .

2016To the extent that the warrant application contains an incomplete sentence, any failure in this regard constituted a technical violation, which does not require the suppression of evidence (see People v Silverstein, 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989], cert denied 493 US 1019 [1990]; People v Lauber, 36 AD3d 949, 950 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]). .

2016To the extent that the warrant application contains an incomplete sentence, any failure in this regard constituted a technical violation, which does not require the suppression of evidence (see People v Silverstein, 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989], cert denied 493 US 1019 [1990]; People v Lauber, 36 AD3d 949, 950 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]). .

2014However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise this specific claim before the hearing court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675, 676 [2011]; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]).

2011However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise this specific claim before the hearing court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]).

2013Likewise, a defendant has the right to be present at a pretrial hearing on the use of his prior bad acts (see id. at 660 ; Favor, 82 NY2d at 267 ), as well as at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors regarding their ability to be fair and impartial (see People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992]).

2008While defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of the trial includes pretrial suppression hearings (see People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450, 456 [1992]; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 659 [1992]) and sidebar conferences (see CPL 260.20; People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992]; People v Bellamy, 34 AD3d 937, 939 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 843 [2007]), that right does not extend to conferences which involve only legal or procedural issues (see People v DePallo, 96 NY2d 437, 443 [2001]; People v Bellamy, 34 AD3d at 939 ).

2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s present challenge to the showup identification procedure as unduly suggestive was preserved by the issues raised at the pretrial suppression hearing (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Berry, 50 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2008]).

2012Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s present challenge to the showup identification procedure as unduly suggestive was preserved by the issues raised at the pretrial suppression hearing (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Berry, 50 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2008]).

2003An indigent defendant has a constitutional right to a free copy of transcripts of a pretrial suppression hearing and a prior trial (see People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463,466 [1973]; People v Zabrocky, 26 NY2d 530, 536 [1970]).

1986Although we have stated that "an indigent defendant has a 'fundamental constitutional right’ to a free transcript of the minutes of a pretrial suppression hearing” (People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463, 466 , supra, quoting People v West, 29 NY2d 728, 729 ; see, People v Peacock, 31 NY2d 907 ; People v Zabrocky, 26 NY2d 530, 536 ; cf. People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600, 604 , supra), such cases stand for the proposition that, where a defendant with funds is entitled to procure a pretrial transcript, the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions (NY Const, art I, § 11; US Const, 14th

2025This post-readiness delay was caused by the district attorney and must be charged to the district attorney ( see People v Boumoussa , 104 AD3d 863, 863 [2d Dept 2013]). (34 days charged. 81 total days charged.) On March 11, 2025, this court conducted and completed the pretrial suppression hearing.

2025This post-readiness delay was caused by the district attorney and must be charged to the district attorney ( see People v Boumoussa , 104 AD3d 863 , 863 [2d Dept 2013]). (34 days charged. 81 total days charged.) On March 11, 2025, this court conducted and completed the pretrial suppression hearing.

2003An indigent defendant has a constitutional right to a free copy of transcripts of a pretrial suppression hearing and a prior trial (see People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463,466 [1973]; People v Zabrocky, 26 NY2d 530, 536 [1970]).

1991The Court of Appeals has consistently and categorically declared that "an indigent defendant has a 'fundamental constitutional right’ to a free transcript of the minutes of a pretrial suppression hearing and that its denial requires a reversal of the judgment of conviction, even though no prejudice be shown and '[r]egardless of the nature and quantum of proof against’ [the defendant]” (People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463, 466 , quoting People v West, 29 NY2d 728, 729 ) as long as a request for such a transcript is made prior to the conclusion of the pretrial hearing (Matter of Eric W., 68 NY2d 633,

1982The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to the accused of a public trial gave neither the public nor the press an enforceable right of access to a pretrial suppression hearing * * * Moreover, the Court did not decide whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a right of the public to attend trials * * * nor did the dissenting opinion reach this issue.” As Justice White who joined the Chief Justice’s opinion bluntly wrote in concurring also (448 US, at pp 581-582), “This case would have been unnecessary had Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U. S. 368 (1979), construed the Si

1980Gannett (supra, p 392 ), a case involving a pretrial suppression hearing, expressly avoided passing on the question of whether the First Amendment created any right of access to such proceedings.

2008In People v Malinsky ( 15 NY2d 86, 95-96 [1965]), the Court of Appeals established the rule that although the prosecution is generally entitled to a single opportunity to meet its evidentiary burden at a pretrial suppression hearing, where an error of law is committed by the hearing court which directly causes the prosecutor to fail to offer potentially critical evidence, a rehearing may be ordered.

1992The defendant was entitled to timely service of the documents at the pretrial suppression hearing (see, People v Malin sky, 15 NY2d 86 ; CPL 240.44 [1]).

2006A defendant has a constitutionally protected right to counsel at a pretrial suppression hearing equal to that at trial (see Coleman v Alabama, 399 US 1, 9-10 [1970]; see also People v Anderson, 16 NY2d 282, 287-288 [1965]).

1992Applying these standards, we have held that a defendant has a right to be present during a pretrial suppression hearing during which witnesses are examined and cross-examined, noting that the "defendant alone may be able to inform his attorney of inconsistencies, errors and falsities in the testimony of the officers or other witnesses” (People v Anderson, 16 NY2d 282, 288 ).

2020After reciting the facts related to the defendant's pretrial suppression hearing, plea and sentence, the brief states in a conclusory fashion that no nonfrivolous issues exist ( see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.] , 89 AD3d at 258 ).

2014The brief submitted by assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California ( 386 US 738 [1967]), while it does recite the testimony elicited at a pretrial suppression hearing in painstaking detail, and while it also summarizes the plea proceeding, nonetheless fails to “highlight [ ] anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal” (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 255 [2011]).

2015Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved this argument for appellate review by, inter alia, specifically challenging the testimony of the police officers and arguing at the hearing that the testimony of the respective police officers was irreconcilable and inconsistent, and conflicted with testimony given before the grand jury ( cf. People v Taylor , 120 AD3d 519, 520 ; People v Inge , 90 AD3d 675 ).

2015Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved this argument for appellate review by, inter alia, specifically challenging the testimony of the police officers and arguing at the hearing that the testimony of the respective police officers was irreconcilable and inconsistent, and conflicted with testimony given before the grand jury (cf. People v Taylor, 120 AD3d 519, 520 [2014]; People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675 [2011]).

2013For example, a defendant has the right to be present at a pretrial suppression hearing since “[he] alone may be able to inform his attorney of inconsistencies, errors and falsities in the testimony of the officers or other witnesses” (Dokes, 79 NY2d at 659 ).

2013Likewise, a defendant has the right to be present at a pretrial hearing on the use of his prior bad acts (see id. at 660 ; Favor, 82 NY2d at 267 ), as well as at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors regarding their ability to be fair and impartial (see People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992]).