People v. Coffaro
| Decision Date | 10 February 1981 |
| Parties | , 419 N.E.2d 344 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Frank COFFARO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Chautauqua County Court should be reversed and the case remitted to that court for review of the facts (CPL 470.25, subd. 2, par. (d); 470.40, subd. 2, par. (b)). Defendant was convicted in the Jamestown City Court, after a jury trial, of obstructing governmental administration (Penal Law, § 195.05). The County Court reversed holding that defects in the papers on which was issued the warrant which the officer involved in the obstruction charged sought to execute made it invalid as a matter of law, and that defendant, therefore, had the right to resist its execution.
The defects in the warrant did not render it facially invalid. As we held in People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 42, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93: Especially is that true where, as here, the issuance of the warrant was not ex parte but on motion at the disposition of which defendant appeared in court. Nor can Briggs be distinguished as defendant seeks to do by pointing out that section 35.27 of the Penal Law, enacted thereafter, is limited to an arrest, for under both section 195.05 and subdivision 3 of section 120.05 of that law a police officer or peace officer is protected in the performance of an official function of whatever kind.
Defendant argues that he is nonetheless entitled to an affirmance because the City Court Judge denied his speedy trial motion without an evidentiary hearing. Under CPL 470.35 (subd. 2, par. (b)), we may, because defendant was adversely affected by the City Court's denial of that motion, consider his speedy trial contention. On the merits, however, it does not avail him. The motion papers show that it was made under CPL 30.20 rather than CPL 30.30, and the affidavit in support of the motion established that defendant was not incarcerated, and that of the 13 months between filing of the information and the date of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Janvier
...of persons under the protective umbrella of both assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05[3] ; People v. Coffaro, 52 N.Y.2d 932, 934, 437 N.Y.S.2d 666, 419 N.E.2d 344 ) and resisting arrest (see Penal Law § 205.30 ). Here, the evidence established that an arrest of the defendant......
-
People v. Wheeler, 2015-1434 OR CR
...a vehicle stop for the purpose of executing a search warrant directed at defendant's vehicle (see e.g. People v. Coffaro , 52 N.Y.2d 932, 934, 437 N.Y.S.2d 666, 419 N.E.2d 344 [1981] ), without the necessity of facts sufficient to establish that the search warrant was authorized (see People......
-
People v. Estrada
...taser. This evidence was sufficient to support the judgments of conviction (see Matter of Shannon B., 70 N.Y.2d 458 [1987] ; People v. Coffaro, 52 N.Y.2d 932 [1981] ; People v. Wilkins, 104 A.D.3d 1156, 1156–1157 [2013] ; People v. Duncan, 241 A.D.2d 566 [1997] ; People v. Bullock, 42 Misc.......
-
People v. Winslow
...defendant's arrest illegal (see, People v. Johnson, 115 A.D.2d 330, 495 N.Y.S.2d 847, supra; see also, People v. Coffaro, 52 N.Y.2d 932, 934, 437 N.Y.S.2d 666, 419 N.E.2d 344). Additionally, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the Town Justice erred in not issuing a summons to......