From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bavisotto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 31, 1992
179 A.D.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 31, 1992

Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Scudder, J.

Present: Denman, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion without a hearing. Although defendant's motion papers allege that a hearing was required because of fraudulent misrepresentations in the warrant application (see, People v Dunn, 155 A.D.2d 75, 80, affd 77 N.Y.2d 19, cert denied ___ US ___, 111 S Ct 2830), the papers submitted by defendant in support of his motion were insufficient to raise an issue of fact concerning the veracity of the police officer making the warrant application. Accordingly, no suppression hearing was required (see, People v Slaughter, 37 N.Y.2d 596; People v. Solimine, 18 N.Y.2d 477; see also, People v. Maucieri, 125 A.D.2d 600, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 953).

We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Bavisotto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 31, 1992
179 A.D.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Bavisotto

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM BAVISOTTO…

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

Date published: Jan 31, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 915

Citing Cases

People v. Araujo

The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was…

People v. Adams

Mere allegation of perjury is insufficient to trigger a hearing; rather, enough factual showing as to raise a…