New York Court of Appeals, 1983

People v. Kinchen

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 20, 1983

60 N.Y.2d 772; 457 N.E.2d 786; 469 N.Y.S.2d 680; 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3468

Cases that cite this one

258 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

People v. McLean (N.Y. 2010)
Hoyt v. Lewin (District Court, S.D. New York 2006)
People v. Monclavo (N.Y. 1996)
People v. Damiano (N.Y. 1996)
People v. McLean (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Brown v. Greiner (2d Cir. 2005)
Gilmore v. Henderson (District Court, E.D. New York 1986)
People v. Griffin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
People v. Shabazz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
The People v. Benny Garay (N.Y. 2015)
People v. Delacruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Velasquez (N.Y. 2003)
People v. Flournoy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Ramos (N.Y. 2002)
People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Redd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Grant (N.Y. 1998)
People v. Camacho (N.Y. 1997)
People v. West (N.Y. 1993)
People v. McCrimmon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Govan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
People v. Graham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
People v. Walters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
The People v. Harvey Weinstein (N.Y. 2024)

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.

Defendant correctly points out that a claimed deprivation of the State constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved by having been specifically raised in a suppression motion or at trial (People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218, 221; People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863, 865). This does not, *774however, dispense with the need for a factual record sufficient to permit appellate review (People v Charleston, 54 NY2d 622, 623; People v De Mauro, 48 NY2d 892, 893). Defendant’s argument that an outstanding bench warrant should be treated as a pending unrelated charge within the meaning of our holdings in People v Bartolomeo (53 NY2d 225) and People v Smith (54 NY2d 954) is not properly presented for our consideration, inasmuch as there is no proof in the record that the police had knowledge of the bench warrant’s issuance prior to taking defendant’s statement, or that they were otherwise chargeable with notice of any other pending criminal action; nor is there proof that defendant was represented by counsel in connection with the warrant or any pending charge (cf. People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [further proceedings were required to resolve factual issues raised by right to counsel claim, where the record made clear that defendant had informed the police of a pending criminal charge prior to interrogation and it was undisputed that defendant had retained counsel in connection with that charge]).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Kaye concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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