From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mavity v. Wehner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 10, 1964
22 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

December 10, 1964

Appeal from the Monroe Special Term.

Present — Williams, P.J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: In affirming the denial of a motion to suppress a statement obtained by a private person in violation of section 270-b of the Penal Law we also desire to point out that there is no statutory provision for this motion. As to the admissibility of the statement in question (see Sackler v. Sackler, 15 N.Y.2d 40; Neff v. Franklinville Roofing Co., 308 N.Y. 946; Bloodgood v. Lynch, 293 N.Y. 308; Matter of Thanhauser v. Milprint, Inc., 9 A.D.2d 833).


Summaries of

Mavity v. Wehner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 10, 1964
22 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Mavity v. Wehner

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA A. MAVITY, Appellant, v. DARLENE R. WEHNER et al., Respondents…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1964

Citations

22 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Matter of Fitzsimmons v. Liuni

Apart from evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure ( Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643)…

Iannielli v. Consolidated Edison Co.

We note as well that the taking of this statement constituted a violation of section 480 Jud. of the…