From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Swiggett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1989
151 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

June 12, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Mazzei, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly quashed the defendant's subpoena duces tecum for production of Family Court documents in an unrelated domestic proceeding (see, 22 NYCRR 205.5; Family Ct Act § 166). Examination of Family Court records is within the discretion of the court and the in camera inspection of the records was entirely proper (see, Department of Social Servs. v. Land, 110 Misc.2d 665).

We further note that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for a Mapp hearing. The record reflects that the defendant made this motion over eight months following his arraignment and it was therefore untimely as a matter of law (see, CPL 255.20).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Swiggett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1989
151 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Swiggett

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY SWIGGETT…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Yung-Fu Chow v. Boonyam

The court, upon granting the plaintiffs' motion for renewal, also adhered to its prior determination denying…