People v. Cassone
| Decision Date | 17 December 1963 |
| Citation | 20 A.D.2d 118,245 N.Y.S.2d 843 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Edward CASSONE and Francis Carbonaro, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Alan Frederick Leibowitz, New York City, of counsel (H. Richard Uviller, New York City, with him on the brief; Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty.) for appellant.
Philip Segal, New York City, of counsel (Samuel Segal, New York City, atty.), for respondent Edward Cassone.
Gretchen W. Oberman, New York City, of counsel (Anthony F. Marra, New York City, atty.), for respondent Francis Carbonaro.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, McNALLY, STEUER and BASTOW, JJ.
The People appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress. The appeal was perfected as to only two of the defendants in the proceeding, namely, Cassone and Carbonaro. As to the remaining defendants, the appeal is severed, and the application as to them is not considered at this time.
The motion to suppress was made in the course of the prosecution of an indictment for Burglary in the Third Degree. The facts brought out on the motion which are, for the purposes of the application, undisputed, follow. Joseph Sullivan, a police officer, was assigned to foot patrol between Fulton and Beekman Streets on the night of December 31 and the morning of January 1, 1962. On this New Year's Eve, the area was practically deserted. Prior to the incidents to be related, from the commencement of the officer's tour of duty at 11 p. m., no pedestrians and only three cars, one a police patrol car, passed him. At about 12:15 a. m., he was standing at the corner of Nassau and Fulton Streets. A group of young people who had come out of the subway passed and greeted him appropriately. Ten minutes later, he looked north up Nassau Street and about two blocks away he saw a car parked along the west curb. A sign projecting from the building enabled him to fix the location as being in front of the Western Union store. The officer knew, from his familiarity with the neighborhood, that this store was not equipped with a burglar alarm. Several men appeared to be loading a heavy object into the trunk of the car. He started to walk towards them, but before he reached them the men got into the car and it started north. At this moment a car passed him and he hailed it. In the car were the young people who had accosted him some minutes earlier. He commandeered the car and directed the driver to follow the other car, still in sight. Snow was falling, the streets were slippery, and speed was inadvisable. It took some time to catch up with the other car and, in the course of the chase, the officer and the driver were able to identify the make of the car (Oldsmobile) they were pursuing, and note that it bore a New Jersey license plate. At Park Row and Pearl Street the first car was stopped by a traffic light. The identification of the car was so complete that no question was raised but that it was established that the car was the same one that was being pursued. The officer drew his revolver, got out and directed the four men to get out of their car. He questioned them and received answers that were patently false. A squad car arrived and the men, who are the defendants, were taken to the Fifth Precinct station house. It later developed that the Western Union store had been burglarized, and a safe from that store, together with burglar's tools, was found in the trunk of the car.
The court below found on these facts that the officer did not have sufficient grounds to make an arrest and that the search pursuant to it was unlawful. We disagree.
A peace officer may arrest without a warrant, in addition to in the situation where the crime is committed in his presence, 'When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person to be arrested to have committed it' (C.C.P., § 177, subd. 3) or 'When he has reasonable cause for believing that a felony has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. DeVito
...18 A.D.2d 177, 239 N.Y.S.2d 161 (2nd Dept., 1963), aff'd 13 N.Y.2d 1014, 245 N.Y.S.2d 595, 195 N.E.2d 306; People v. Cassone, 20 A.D.2d 118, 245 N.Y.S.2d 843 (1st Dept., 1963), aff'd 14 N.Y.2d 798, 251 N.Y.S.2d 33, 200 N.E.2d 214; People v. Santiago, 13 N.Y.2d 326, 247 N.Y.S.2d 473, 196 N.E......
-
Williams, In re
...159 N.Y.S.2d 219; Jones v. Freeman's Dairy, 283 App.Div. 667, 127 N.Y.S.2d 200, 283 App.Div. 806, 129 N.Y.S.2d 498; People v. Cassone, 20 A.D.2d 118, 245 N.Y.S.2d 843, affd. 14 N.Y.2d 798, 251 N.Y.S.2d 33, 200 N.E.2d 214, 14 N.Y.2d 942, 252 N.Y.S.2d 335, 200 N.E.2d 873; Certiorari denied 37......
-
People v. Roach
...have recently given a literal construction to that provision no doubt justified by the terminology employed. In People v. Cassone, 20 A.D.2d 118, 120, 245 N.Y.S.2d 843, 845, affd. w. o. 14 N.Y.2d 798, 251 N.Y.S.2d 33, 200 N.E.2d 214), a search and seizure issue, the First Department constru......
-
People v. Graf
...U.S. 98, 104, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134; People v. Cassone, 35 Misc.2d 699, 700, 230 N.Y.S.2d 822, 824, rev'd on other grounds 20 A.D.2d 118, 245 N.Y.S.2d 843, aff'd 14 N.Y.2d 798, 251 N.Y.S.2d 33, 200 N.E.2d 214, cert. denied 379 U.S. 892, 85 S.Ct. 167, 13 L.Ed.2d 95. Of course, if the a......