pre-trial suppression hearing in New York

8 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Womackgreen nyappdiv · 1996 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025V.M. was on scene for the defendant's arrest and was present when the defendant made the noticed statement, it is arguable that FM G. is not a necessary witness for the Huntley/Dunaway hearing that has been pending before this court since July 16, 2024 ( see People v Chavis , 91 NY2d 500, 505 [1988] ["A hearing usually determines narrow issues of the admissibility of evidence at the subsequent trial and does not involve the same witnesses as will be used at trial," thus an essential witness at trial may not be a necessary witness at a pre-trial suppression hearing]; cf. Womack , 229 AD2d at 30 2025V.M. was on scene for the defendant's arrest and was present when the defendant made the noticed statement, it is arguable that FM G. is not a necessary witness for the Huntley/Dunaway hearing that has been pending before this court since July 16, 2024 ( see People v Chavis , 91 NY2d 500, 505 [1988] ["A hearing usually determines narrow issues of the admissibility of evidence at the subsequent trial and does not involve the same witnesses as will be used at trial," thus an essential witness at trial may not be a necessary witness at a pre-trial suppression hearing]; cf. Womack , 229 AD2d at 30	2	2
People v. Chavisgreen ny · 1998 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025V.M. was on scene for the defendant's arrest and was present when the defendant made the noticed statement, it is arguable that FM G. is not a necessary witness for the Huntley/Dunaway hearing that has been pending before this court since July 16, 2024 ( see People v Chavis , 91 NY2d 500, 505 [1988] ["A hearing usually determines narrow issues of the admissibility of evidence at the subsequent trial and does not involve the same witnesses as will be used at trial," thus an essential witness at trial may not be a necessary witness at a pre-trial suppression hearing]; cf. Womack , 229 AD2d at 30 2025V.M. was on scene for the defendant's arrest and was present when the defendant made the noticed statement, it is arguable that FM G. is not a necessary witness for the Huntley/Dunaway hearing that has been pending before this court since July 16, 2024 ( see People v Chavis , 91 NY2d 500, 505 [1988] ["A hearing usually determines narrow issues of the admissibility of evidence at the subsequent trial and does not involve the same witnesses as will be used at trial," thus an essential witness at trial may not be a necessary witness at a pre-trial suppression hearing]; cf. Womack , 229 AD2d at 30	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Allen neutral nysupct · 2005 1 sentence 2013People v Allen, 9 Misc 3d at 238 , citing People v Whitehead, 305 AD2d 286 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 600 [2003]; People v Leon, 290 AD2d 277 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002] and People v Dones, 250 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 1998].) The defendant argues: “This is not a situation akin to a judge presiding over a pre-trial suppression hearing and then acting as a fact-finder at a bench trial.	1	2013–2013
People v. Rodriguez green nyappdiv · 1998 1 sentence 2013People v Allen, 9 Misc 3d at 238 , citing People v Whitehead, 305 AD2d 286 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 600 [2003]; People v Leon, 290 AD2d 277 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002] and People v Dones, 250 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 1998].) The defendant argues: “This is not a situation akin to a judge presiding over a pre-trial suppression hearing and then acting as a fact-finder at a bench trial.	1	2013–2013
People v. Leon neutral nyappdiv · 2002 1 sentence 2013People v Allen, 9 Misc 3d at 238 , citing People v Whitehead, 305 AD2d 286 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 600 [2003]; People v Leon, 290 AD2d 277 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002] and People v Dones, 250 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 1998].) The defendant argues: “This is not a situation akin to a judge presiding over a pre-trial suppression hearing and then acting as a fact-finder at a bench trial.	1	2013–2013
Lantigua v. Williams green nyappdiv · 2003 1 sentence 2013People v Allen, 9 Misc 3d at 238 , citing People v Whitehead, 305 AD2d 286 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 600 [2003]; People v Leon, 290 AD2d 277 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002] and People v Dones, 250 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 1998].) The defendant argues: “This is not a situation akin to a judge presiding over a pre-trial suppression hearing and then acting as a fact-finder at a bench trial.	1	2013–2013
People v. Arac neutral nyappdiv · 2002 1 sentence 2004There were no minutes available to establish at whose request this adjournment was granted (see People v Arac, 297 AD2d 560 [2002]), but there was some indication in the record that the adjournment was ordered “by [the] court.” The Supreme Court stated that it charged this time to the People “ [considering the repeated and numerous non-excludable delays on the part of the prosecution, and [its] ‘dilatory’ conduct in connection with the pre-trial suppression hearing.” Notwithstanding the absence of any articulable factual basis, the Supreme Court concluded that the People were chargeable with t	1	2004–2004
People v. Holmes green ny · 1993 1 sentence 1999The Court of Appeals has held that an undefined bulge in a jacket pocket, as opposed to a waistband bulge, is hardly indicative of criminality (People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1058 ).	1	1999–1999
Robinson v. United States green scotus · 1979 1 sentence 1997Upon our own review of the record, it is clear that the People failed to make a " 'factual showing that an exception to the norm of a public trial [is] justified.’ ” (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 442 , quoting People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409, 415 , cert denied 444 US 946 .) In reversing for the reason stated, we reach no other issue.	1	1997–1997
People v. Martinez green ny · 1993 1 sentence 1997Upon our own review of the record, it is clear that the People failed to make a " 'factual showing that an exception to the norm of a public trial [is] justified.’ ” (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 442 , quoting People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409, 415 , cert denied 444 US 946 .) In reversing for the reason stated, we reach no other issue.	1	1997–1997
People v. Jones green ny · 1979 1 sentence 1997Upon our own review of the record, it is clear that the People failed to make a " 'factual showing that an exception to the norm of a public trial [is] justified.’ ” (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 442 , quoting People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409, 415 , cert denied 444 US 946 .) In reversing for the reason stated, we reach no other issue.	1	1997–1997
People v. Banch green ny · 1992 1 sentence 1993A defendant is entitled to the production of Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , rearg denied 9 NY2d 908 , cert denied 368 US 866 , rearg denied 14 NY2d 876 , 15 NY2d 765 ) at a pre-trial suppression hearing (see, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 615 ; People v Malinsky, 15 NY2d 86 ).	1	1993–1993
People v. Grant neutral nyappdiv · 1993 1 sentence 1993Thus, defendant failed to preserve his current claim that the People deprived him of a fair trial by failing in their duty to preserve Rosario material (People v Grant, 197 AD2d 399 ).	1	1993–1993
Cummings v. Bennett green scotus · 1961 1 sentence 1993A defendant is entitled to the production of Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , rearg denied 9 NY2d 908 , cert denied 368 US 866 , rearg denied 14 NY2d 876 , 15 NY2d 765 ) at a pre-trial suppression hearing (see, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 615 ; People v Malinsky, 15 NY2d 86 ).	1	1993–1993
People v. Rosario green ny · 1961 1 sentence 1993A defendant is entitled to the production of Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , rearg denied 9 NY2d 908 , cert denied 368 US 866 , rearg denied 14 NY2d 876 , 15 NY2d 765 ) at a pre-trial suppression hearing (see, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 615 ; People v Malinsky, 15 NY2d 86 ).	1	1993–1993
People v. Malinsky green ny · 1965 1 sentence 1993A defendant is entitled to the production of Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , rearg denied 9 NY2d 908 , cert denied 368 US 866 , rearg denied 14 NY2d 876 , 15 NY2d 765 ) at a pre-trial suppression hearing (see, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 615 ; People v Malinsky, 15 NY2d 86 ).	1	1993–1993
People v. Wallace green ny · 1990 1 sentence 1993The destruction of the notes in this case, where identification was a principal issue, was prejudicial (see, People v Wallace, 76 NY2d 953, 955 ) and the hearing court’s denial of defense counsel’s request to make a record was error.	1	1993–1993

Where else courts name it

TX 35 (1983–2024) PA 24 (1969–2025) NY 8 (1993–2025) AL 7 (1982–1994) MD 5 (1987–2023) HI 5 (1980–2002) MS 4 (1988–2001) IN 4 (1975–1991) MN 4 (1995–2013) FL 4 (1978–1984) NC 3 (1985–2009) MO 3 (1990–2010) WV 3 (1995–2016) KY 3 (1983–1993) NJ 3 (1977–2018) VA 2 (1991–1998) OH 2 (1989–2019) TN 2 (2009–2019) LA 2 (1978–1999) SC 2 (2007–2018) CO 2 (2008–2012) WA 2 (2010–2026) GA 2 (2009–2011)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check