From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hercules

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1996
229 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 1, 1996

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (DeRiggi, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Assuming, arguendo, as found by Judge DeRiggi on reargument, that the initial stop of the defendant after he exited the front door of the complainant's house was unlawful, any taint attributable to that encounter was attenuated when the complainant immediately came out of the house and informed the police that she did not know the defendant and that she did not know why he was in her house ( see, People v. Paden, 158 A.D.2d 554, 555). The complainant's statement provided probable cause for the defendant's arrest.

Further, the trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v McClam, 225 A.D.2d 799). Bracken, J.P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hercules

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1996
229 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Hercules

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARK HERCULES…

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
645 N.Y.S.2d 58