From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1995
212 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 6, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).


Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The defendant's contention regarding his written omnibus motion is not preserved for appellate review since the Supreme Court did not rule on the branch of the motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see, CPL 710.60), and the defendant failed to bring that fact to the Supreme Court's attention. However, it was error to summarily deny the defendant's oral motion to suppress physical evidence. The defendant made a sufficient factual showing to warrant a hearing on the issues that he raised in his oral motion (see, People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415; People v. Grajales, 175 A.D.2d 293; People v. Alvarez, 151 A.D.2d 684). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1995
212 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Lopez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VICTOR LOPEZ, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 125

Citing Cases

People v. White

In reviewing the adequacy of a defendant's factual allegations, a court should consider "(1) the face of the…

People v. White

In reviewing the adequacy of a defendant's factual allegations, a court should consider "(1) the face of the…