Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Acosta

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


October 13, 2009

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
v.
RADAMES ACOSTA, APPELLANT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered December 6, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts), unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a non-jury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Roman, J.), without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, THOMAS A. DICKERSON & PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

(Ind. No. 1683/07)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on that 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, Queens County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The defendant's motion to suppress merchandise recovered from his possession by store security guards was improperly denied without a hearing. The defendant was entitled to a hearing on the purely factual issue of whether or not the security guards were, as he alleged, "peace officers . . . or persons acting as agents of the police" (see People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 433-434). A guard's licensing status is not something a defendant could be expected to know and is, therefore, not something a defendant could be expected to allege with particularity (id. at 434; see People v Green, 33 AD3d 452). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

In light of the foregoing determination, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contention at this time.

MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and LOTT, JJ., concur.

20091013

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.