From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hovanec

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 1987
128 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

March 30, 1987

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After his arrest the defendant twice told the arresting officer that there were no charges pending against him and that he was not represented by counsel. The defendant's response was sufficient to entitle the officer to end his inquiry concerning the defendant's representation by counsel and to continue to interrogate the defendant (see, People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111, 119; People v. Lucarano, 61 N.Y.2d 138, 147; People v. Casiano, 117 A.D.2d 744; People v. Hovanec, 127 A.D.2d 1015).

We also find that there was evidence sufficient to corroborate the defendant's confession in accordance with the requisites of CPL 60.50 (see, People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 570-571; People v. Talve, 73 A.D.2d 629, 630).

The issue raised by the defendant in his pro se supplemental brief has been considered and found to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hovanec

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 1987
128 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Hovanec

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH HOVANEC, JR.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 30, 1987

Citations

128 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Speed

Although there was evidence that the defendant had, at the time of this arrest, a pending case arising from…

People v. Berring

The rule of the Rogers and Bartolomeo cases (supra) has not been extended to require that investigating…