From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sidhom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 12, 1994
204 A.D.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 12, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.).


Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. We find that the People met their burden of coming forward (People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361, 367) with evidence that the officer observed the firearm from a lawful vantage point outside the car (see, People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, 370), and that defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that the officer impermissibly leaned into the car's interior (see, People v. Aquino, 119 A.D.2d 464, 465-466; People v. Guzman, 116 A.D.2d 528).

Contrary to defendant's argument, the court did not restrict defendant's right to impeach a trial witness on the basis of his grand jury testimony. The court simply required, as a matter of form, that the witness be confronted with specific questions and answers, rather than with his failure to volunteer unsolicited information before the grand jury (People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 88-89, cert denied sub nom. Victory v. New York, 416 U.S. 905).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Sidhom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 12, 1994
204 A.D.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Sidhom

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FIKRY SIDHOM, Appellant

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

Date published: May 12, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 12

Citing Cases

People v. Moffitt

Once the People have met this burden, the defendant has the ultimate burden of establishing the illegality of…

People v. Hernandez

The motion court specifically found, and the record supports such finding, that the officer did not enter the…