People v. Cardaio
| Decision Date | 15 July 1968 |
| Citation | 30 A.D.2d 843,294 N.Y.S.2d 579 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Nicholas CARDAIO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thomas J. Mackell, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens, Queens County, for respondent; George D. Marlow, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.
Samuel J. Siegel, New York City, for appellant.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and BRENNAN, HOPKINS, BENJAMIN and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 23, 1968, which for the third time denied his motion to suppress certain evidence. Order affirmed.
Previously this court affirmed defendant's convictions, upon a jury verdict, of feloniously possessing a narcotic drug with intent to sell; and affirmed an order which denied his motion, after a hearing, for suppression of evidence (People v. Cardaio, 25 A.D.2d 953, 272 N.Y.S.2d 112). At that suppression hearing the People adduced proof that Lieutenant Mulligan (who did not testify) had informed Detective King that one Tod Konrad had complained that defendant robbed him of eight pounds of marijuana at gunpoint. Detective King and other police officers immediately proceeded to defendant's home to arrest defendant and to search for the gun. Upon gaining admission to his apartment (the hearing judge concluded that the officers had been invited in) the officers discovered the stolen marijuana. Tod Konrad testified that on June 1, 1964 (the day of defendant's arrest) the police came to his apartment and questioned him about the robbery. He told them that he had been robbed at gunpoint but denied stating that defendant had done it. The hearing judge said he did not believe the latter part of Konrad's testimony. As stated earlier, this court affirmed the judgments of conviction and the intermediate order. The Court of Appeals withheld determination of an appeal from said affirmance and remitted the case for a further hearing on the motion to suppress stating that 'it is incumbent upon the People' to adduce proof establishing probable cause where the source of the information denies he was the source (People v. Cardaio, 18 N.Y.2d 924, 925, 276 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1005, 223 N.E.2d 497).
At the second hearing Lieutenant Mulligan testified that other police officers had informed him of the presence of marijuana at Konrad's residence. He and other officers proceeded to that address to determine if such an apartment in fact existed. Konrad accidentally accosted the officers in the common hallway and personally informed Mulligan about the aforementioned robbery and described one of the assailants as defendant. Konrad also gave Mulligan defendant's telephone number.
The hearing judge denied defendant's request to permit Konrad to testify as a rebuttal witness an denied defendant's motion to suppress the marijuana. A new order was entered thereon and defendant again appealed to this court.
This court affirmed the findings of fact and observed that the testimony of Lieutenant Mulligan established that Konrad was the source of the information upon which the police had probable cause. However, in view of the Court of Appeals mandate we reversed, on the law, and remitted the case for a full hearing to permit Konrad to testify as a rebuttal witness (People v. Cardaio, 28 A.D.2d 1144, 284 N.Y.S.2d 940).
A third hearing was conducted on February 21, 1968 before Judge Shapiro. The transcripts of the two prior hearings were offered by defendant and accepted as evidence. The defendant offered and the court also accepted the transcript of the hearing on a motion to suppress in People v. Konrad (Ind. No. 2469/64, New York County). Both parties then rested. The transcript of the Konrad hearing revealed that Detective Orlick (the sole witness) testified that certain police officers had arrested someone who had marijuana in his possession and he had informed them that more marijuana could be found at Konrad's apartment. Orlick and other officers (including Mulligan) immediately proceeded to Konrad's residence as heretofore indicated. Konrad met the officers in the hallway. They identified themselves and informed Konrad that a narcotics investigation was being conducted. Konrad said he was 'a nervous wreck' because of an armed robbery at his apartment the prior evening whereby eight or nine pounds of marijuana had been stolen from him. He invited the officers into his apartment and voluntarily turned over the remaining amount of marijuana in his possession. The hearing judge in New York County granted the motion to suppress and, in effect, ruled that the police officers had obtained that evidence pursuant to a trespass on Konrad's property.
Considering the matter De novo, Judge Shapiro in denying the motion ruled: 'If there were in fact a violation of the constitutional rights of Konrad which prohibited the use against him of the statements made by Him to Detective Mulligan, those statements could still serve as probable cause for the search thereafter made of Cardaio's home for a gun, since he has no standing to complain of the violation of Konrad's constitutional rights.' On this appeal defendant contends that Mulligan's testimony should be stricken from the record because the statements made by Konrad to him, while the police officers were illegally on Konrad's property, must be suppressed as tainted evidence under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (see People v. Rodriguez, 11 N.Y.2d 279, 229 N.Y.S.2d 353, 183 N.E.2d 651).
On the previous appeals this court concluded that probable cause for the arrest of defendant without a warrant had been established (see Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782; United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175--176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879; People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 280 N.Y.S.2d 356, 227 N.E.2d 284; People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Cardaio v. Casscles
... ... Justice Conroy denied the motion by order dated January 19, 1965. Petitioner was then tried and convicted by a jury verdict. He appealed from both the judgment of conviction and from the order denying his motion to suppress. The Appellate Division affirmed both. People v. Cardaio, 25 A.D. 2d 953, 272 N.Y.S.2d 112 (2d Dept. 1966). The New York Court of Appeals, however, withheld determination of the appeal and remanded the case to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a further hearing on the motion to suppress. People v. Cardaio, 18 N.Y.2d 924, 276 N.Y.S.2d 1004, ... ...
-
People v. Ford
... ... Cefaro, 45 Misc.2d 990, 258 N.Y.S.2d 289, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 252, 287 N.Y.S.2d 371, 234 N.E.2d 423; also see People v. Lane, 10 N.Y.2d 347, 353, 223 N.Y.S.2d 197, 199, 179 N.E.2d 339, 340; People v. De Vivo, 23 A.D.2d 753, 258 N.Y.S.2d 1013; cf. People v. Cardaio, 30 A.D.2d 843, 294 N.Y.S.2d 579, affd. 24 N.Y.2d 988, 302 N.Y.S.2d 818, 250 N.E.2d 227), he has no standing to secure a disclosure of such evidence (Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, at 171--174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176, supra). In Alderman, it was said at page 174, 89 S.Ct. at pp ... ...
-
People v. Aponte, 3061
... ... That contention lacks merit since Valentine may Not rely upon the violation of Aponte's constitutional rights to obtain the suppression of his own statement (see People v. Cardaio, 30 A.D.2d 843, 294 N.Y.S.2d 579). However, because of Valentine's subsidiary role in the actions of Aponte and the serious question of whether the People met their burden of disproving the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law, §§ 25.00, 35.15; People v. Steele, 26 ... ...
-
People v. Stojek
... ... (Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 389, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247; People v. Cardaio, 30 A.D.2d 843, 294 N.Y.S.2d 579.) ... In United States ex rel. Coffey v. Fay, 2 Cir., 344 F.2d 625, quoted and relied on by the dissent, the question of standing was academic, since it was there concluded that the petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated because ... ...