From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thatch

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 21, 1988
71 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. 1988)

Opinion

Argued March 22, 1988

Decided April 21, 1988

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Jerome Reinstein, J.

James A. Burke, Philip L. Weinstein and Andrew C. Fine for appellant.

Paul T. Gentile, District Attorney (Michael R. Gordon and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The question of whether defendant's wife voluntarily consented to the search of their apartment presents a mixed question of law and fact. Having been resolved against the defendant in the lower courts, and finding support in the record, this question is now beyond our review (see, People v Meredith, 49 N.Y.2d 1038, 1039).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Thatch

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 21, 1988
71 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Thatch

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT THATCH…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 21, 1988

Citations

71 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. 1988)
528 N.Y.S.2d 527
523 N.E.2d 814

Citing Cases

In re Becker

Having reviewed the record before us, we find no justification for disturbing the Referee's conclusions,…

Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Judicial Dep't v. Becker (In re Becker)

Having reviewed the record before us, we find no justification for disturbing the Referee's conclusions,…