From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1997
243 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 16, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.).


Defendant's claim that the court erred in not suppressing the undercover officer's confirmatory identification of defendant is not preserved by appropriate argument at the hearing ( People v Brimage, 214 A.D.2d 454, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 732), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

The existing record, which defendant has not yet sought to amplify by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, does not negate all possible explanations for counsel's failure to present specific arguments regarding the suppression issues in question ( People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Mota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1997
243 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Mota

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BIENVENIDO MOTA, Also…

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

Date published: Oct 16, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 529

Citing Cases

People v. Kemp

Defendant failed to raise that contention at the suppression hearing and thus has failed to preserve it for…

People v. DiLenola

In any event, we reject the contention of defendant that the conversation was privileged ( see, People v.…