From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Grimaldi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 2003
304 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-11047

Argued March 21, 2003.

April 7, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered December 12, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Theodore W. Robinson, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green and Cameron Kenny of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

In support of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, the defendant failed to raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 432-33; People v. Reynolds, 71 N.Y.2d 552; People v. Smith, 212 A.D.2d 552; People v. Arroya, 268 A.D.2d 287). Thus, the Supreme Court properly summarily denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion (see CPL 710.60, [3] [b]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., ADAMS, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Grimaldi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 2003
304 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Grimaldi

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MARVIN GRIMALDI, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 7, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 896

Citing Cases

People v. Struss

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. In support of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was…