People v. Gonzalez, 433 N.E.2d 1266 (NY 1982). · Go Syfert
People v. Gonzalez, 433 N.E.2d 1266 (NY 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The People v. Ramon Cabrera (ny, 2023-11-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Ramon Cabrera
NY · 2023 · confidence medium
Other cases reach a similar conclusion (see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888 [1982] [same]; People v Gates, 24 NY2d 666, 669-670 [1969] [not reaching unpreserved claim under Davis v Mississippi, 394 US 721 (1969), because failure to timely object deprived People of opportunity to establish lawful grounds for arrest]; People v Friola, 11 NY2d 157, 158-160 [1962] [not reaching unpreserved claim under Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961), because record contained no inquiry as to lawfulness of alleged search and seizure]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Nadine Panton
NY · 2016 · confidence medium
Because defendant did not raise this particular ground either in her suppression motion or at the hearing, it is unpre-served for our review (see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Turner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“Because that contention was not raised in defendant’s pretrial omnibus motion or at the suppression hearing, it has not been preserved for our review” (People v King, 284 AD2d 941 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 920 [2001]; see People v Coleman, 56 NY2d 269, 274 [1982]; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Turner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“Because that contention was not raised in defendant’s pretrial omnibus motion or at the suppression hearing, it has not been preserved for our review” (People v King, 284 AD2d 941 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 920 [2001]; see People v Coleman, 56 NY2d 269, 274 [1982]; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Demitrus B.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Respondent failed to preserve for our review his contention that the police improperly conducted a body cavity search without first obtaining a warrant to do so (see generally People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888 [1982]; People v Fuentes, 52 AD3d 1297, 1298 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 736 [2008]; People v Ricks, 49 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 869 [2008], reconsideration denied 11 NY3d 740 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Robinson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to move to suppress evidence seized from his aunt’s apartment, where he ultimately was apprehended, and therefore failed to preserve for our review the contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the seizure of that evidence violated his constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure (see generally People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888 [1982]; People v Dickerson, 148 AD2d 970 [1989], rearg granted on other grounds 149 AD2d 985 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 739 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Diggs
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The defendant’s further contention that these showup identifications, made subsequent to an initial showup identification by another witness, should have been suppressed in the absence of exigent circumstances is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888 [1982]; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031 [1980]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Campbell
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · confidence medium
We note that defendant has not claimed, either below or on appeal, that her arrest was invalid because it was made without a warrant, and the issue is clearly unpreserved (see, People v Claudio, 64 NY2d 858 ; People v Smith, 55 NY2d 888, 890; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887, 888).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Benjamin Gonzalez
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 9, 1982.
433 N.E.2d 1266
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Eleanor Jackson Piel for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney William J. Comiskey and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 41 opinions  |  Published

OPINION of the court

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress was predicated on two grounds, to wit: (1) the lack of probable cause to sustain his arrest; and (2) the arresting officers’ failure to inform defendant of their purpose and authority as required by CPL 140.15 (subd 2). At no time before the suppression court did defendant raise the issue that the weapon should have been suppressed because his arrest was effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances. (See Payton v New York, 445 US 573.) By not raising that particular issue within the context of his initial motion to suppress, defendant has failed to preserve it for appellate review. (People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029.) Therefore, we need not reach the question whether the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Payton v New York (supra) should be given retroactive effect so as to invalidate arrests made prior to the date of that decision.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and have found it to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Jones taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.