From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Duerr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1998
251 A.D.2d 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 16, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.).


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The acts of the private citizen herein are not subject to challenge because they were not instigated or supervised by the police ( see, People v. Galloway, 138 A.D.2d 735, 737, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1027), and not conducted at their request ( see, People v. Cole, 200 A.D.2d 832, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 850). The police gave the private citizen no instructions ( see, People v. Shabani, 203 A.D.2d 142, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 832), promised him no reward, and offered him not even "slight assistance" ( People v. Henriquez, 214 A.D.2d 485, 486, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 873). The record shows, if anything, only generalized encouragement, which does not warrant a finding of agency for suppression purposes ( see, People v. Del Duco, 247 A.D.2d 487).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Duerr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1998
251 A.D.2d 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Duerr

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RENATE DUERR, Also…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 340

Citing Cases

People v. Stroman

We agree with defendant that the court erred in finding that the victim was not acting as an agent of the…

People v. Quijano

Here, the police had ample reason to believe that, despite defendant's apparent effort to exclude his wife,…