People v. Cassone

• Decision Date: 10 July 1964
• Citation: 252 N.Y.S.2d 335,200 N.E.2d 873,14 N.Y.2d 942
• Parties: , 200 N.E.2d 873 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward CASSONE et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 335

252 N.Y.S.2d 335

14 N.Y.2d 942, 200 N.E.2d 873

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward CASSONE et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 10, 1964.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, 20 A.D.2d 118, 245 N.Y.S.2d 843; People v. LaMonica, 20 A.D.2d 861, 249 N.Y.S.2d 392.

In the course of a prosecution of an indictment for burglary in the third degree, a motion to suppress evidence was made. The Court of General Sessions, New York County, Thomas Dickens, J., granted the motion, 35 Misc.2d 699, 230 N.Y.S.2d 822, and the People appealed.

The Appellate Division reversed and denied the motion, and held that where a police officer saw an automobile in front of a store which he knew was not equipped with a burglar alarm and noted that several men appeared to be loading a heavy object into the trunk of the automobile after midnight, the arrest of the men was valid and the search pursuant thereto was also valid.

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, 14 N.Y.2d 798, 251 N.Y.S.2d 33, 200 N.E.2d 214, affirmed the orders. Fuld, J., dissented.

The defendant made a motion in the Court of Appeals to amend the remittitur.

Samuel Segal, New York City (Philip Segal, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Edward Cassone.

Gretchen White Oberman and Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for defendant-appellants Francis Carbonaro and Dominick LaMonica.

Frank S. Hogan, New York City (H. Richard Uviller and Alan Frederick Leibowitz, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Motion to amend the remittitur granted. Return of the remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz: Appellant contended that evidence sought to be used against him should have been suppressed because the manner in which such evidence was procured constituted an unlawful search and seizure, in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals held that appellant's constitutional rights had not been violated.