People v. Spruill
Opinion of the Court
Defendant was charged by indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree after he sold a quantity
We affirm. Defendant’s sole challenge on appeal concerns County Court’s decision denying his motion to suppress identification evidence. However, defendant’s valid knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal — which was comprehensive, unqualified and made with the advice of counsel — precludes this appeal from the adverse suppression ruling (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Gentry, 68 AD3d 1353, 1354 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 800 [2010]; People v Muirhead, 67 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2009]; People v Pump, 67 AD3d 1041, 1041 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]).
Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.