People v. Gomez
Cases that cite this one
68 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Gonzalez v. Superintendent, Sullivan Correctional Facility (District Court, E.D. New York 1991)
- People v. Wesley (N.Y. 1989)
- The People v. Eric Ibarguen (N.Y. 2021)
- People v. Burton (N.Y. 2006)
- People v. May (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Willis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Esquilin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Esquilin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Burton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- People v. Cintron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- People v. Hernandez (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2002)
- People v. Vargas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Lopez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Perkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Allen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Wilson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Planes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Stitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Cook (New York Supreme Court 1996)
- People v. Garcia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
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’s suppression motion was supported by an affirmation of defense counsel which, on the issue of standing to challenge the warrantless search, referred only to an allegation in the felony complaint that the evidence was found "in defendant’s apartment”; defendant alleged no present possessory interest in the apartment. Counsel’s reference was insufficient as a factual assertion that defendant had an expectation of privacy in the area searched (see, CPL 710.60 [1]), so as to require a hearing (see, CPL 710.60 [3]). Nor did defendant in his suppression motion contend, as he does now, that his failure to allege facts supporting standing was justified by a fear that such allegations would tend to incriminate him in Canada. Thus, the suppression court appropriately concluded that defendant’s suppression motion should be summarily denied.
Defendant next claims that his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree should be reversed because the checks should have been assigned the nominal value of blank checks (which these were at the time of the theft) rather than the amounts on the checks at the time they were recovered, which exceeded $250 (Penal Law § 165.45 [1]). The objection of defense counsel, as part of his
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.