From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1995
212 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 6, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J, R. Goldberg, J.).


Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

In support of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, the defendant, without any factual support, simply requested a hearing to suppress any evidence illegally seized from him. Such a showing is insufficient to warrant a hearing where, as here, the defendant did not lack access to information precluding more specific factual allegations (see, People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 432-433; cf., People v. Vasquez, 200 A.D.2d 344). Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in summarily denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion (see, CPL 710.60, [3] [b]).

In light of the foregoing determination, there is no basis for vacatur of the plea under Indictment No. 7653/86 (cf., People v Clarke, 45 N.Y.2d 432). Lawrence, J.P., Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1995
212 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VINCENT SMITH…

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 123

Citing Cases

People v. Ventura

As to what averments the defense may allege to secure a hearing, the Court finds that it is minimal providing…

People v. Loving

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. That branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress…