New York Court of Appeals, 1982

People v. Salgado

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 2, 1982

57 N.Y.2d 662; 439 N.E.2d 878; 454 N.Y.S.2d 69; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3604

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Brooks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Serrano (N.Y. 1999)
People v. Hammock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Lemazzo (New York Supreme Court 1993)
People v. Guerrero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Carpenito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Riddick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Webb (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The discrepancy in the warrant, which described the apartment to be searched as 25J when in fact the apartment intended was 25C, was not material in view of the facts that the warrant also named the occupant, that the informant accompanied the police to the apartment, was admitted by the person named as occupant, and confirmed to the police that the occupant was the person referred to in the warrant, and that an amendment of the warrant to state the correct designation of the apartment was obtained before any search or seizure was conducted (see People v Taggart, 51 AD2d 863; People v Law, 55 Misc 2d 1075; cf. People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396).

The objection concerning failure to establish due diligence in attempting to locate the informant is not well taken. If addressed to the failure to produce the informant at trial, the objection was not preserved. If addressed to the failure to produce him at the hearing on the warrant, there *664was no obligation to do so the warrant having been issued on the basis of his testimony under oath before the issuing Judge, a transcript of which was presented at the hearing.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.