People v. Goldfarb

CourtNew York Court of General Sessions
Writing for the CourtIRWIN DAVIDSON; A careful reading of the record discloses that the arresting officers in fact failed to make known to the occupant of the apartment their official business
Citation34 Misc.2d 866,229 N.Y.S.2d 620
Decision Date10 May 1962
PartiesPEOPLE v. Frank GOLDFARB.

Page 620

229 N.Y.S.2d 620
34 Misc.2d 866
PEOPLE v. Frank GOLDFARB.
Court of General Sessions, New York County.
May 10, 1962.

[34 Misc.2d 867] Frank S. Hogan, New York City, for the People; Robert Burstein, Washington, D. C., of counsel, in opposition to the motion.

Albert Felix, New York City, for defendant, for the motion.

IRWIN DAVIDSON, Judge.

The defendant, indicted for felonies relating to bookmaking, moves for an order suppressing the use on the trial of certain records, papers and documents seized by the arresting officers while engaged in an unlawful search of his home.

The facts which gave rise to the alleged unlawful search and seizure are as follows: In the morning of August 16, 1961, Police Officer Henschel received confidential information that a bookmaker was taking bets on telephone number BR 9-8489. In seeking to place a bet over this phone, the officer failed to give the proper code words and was told he had the wrong number. When he hung up his coin was returned. Because of this the special investigator of the telephone company was alerted and he conducted an investigation. It was discovered that the telephone number, BR 9-8489, was connected improperly and unauthorizedly to LW 4-0765, both located in an apartment at 403 West Fortieth Street. This latter phone was in turn connected with a third telephone, TR 7-2826, traced to apartment two at No. 60 West Eighty-second Street.

Page 621

Observing the action of the phones, it was learned that BR 9-8489, which was receiving an inordinate number of calls in a very short space of time, was connected to LW 4-0765 by a 'cheesebox' device so that the incoming calls on BR 9-8489 were immediately switched over to LW 4-0765 and in turn relayed to TR 7-2826.

It was also learned that upon completing the conversation from a coin box phone booth to BR 9-8489, upon hanging up the receiver, the coins deposited in the phone coin receptacle would be returned.

The police, in company of the special agent of the telephone company, proceeded to Eighty-first Street and Central Park West which was in the immediate neighborhood of the apartment building located at No. 60 West Eighty-second Street. From a nearby phone booth Police Officer Henschel dialed BR 9-8489, used the appropriate code words, and placed a bet on a horse. Upon completing his call his coin was returned. All then proceed to apartment 2 of No. 60 West Eighty-second Street. While standing outside the door, Police Officer Henschel overheard the defendant say certain things which he interpreted as the acceptance of bets on baseball games. Thereupon one of the group, a Police Deputy Inspector, [34 Misc.2d 868] rapped sharply on the door and said 'open up'. There being no response for several seconds, the police pushed in the door and entered the apartment. Inside the door and seated at a table, on which were many slips of paper, was the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • United States v. Warden of Rikers Island Penitentiary
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 14, 1965
    ...or destruction of evidence. Thus it appears that the judicially created exceptions would not be applicable, see People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. County Ct. 1962) (sharp rapping on the door followed by the words "open up" held insufficient to satisfy New Y......
  • People v. Floyd
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1968
    ...of his authority and purpose is an unlawful arrest. (People v. Griffin, 22 Page 955 A.D.2d 957, 256 N.Y.S.2d 115; People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 869, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620; also see People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 392--394, 280 N.Y.S.2d 356, 359--361, 227 N.E.2d 284, 386--387.) It has als......
  • United States v. Sims, Crim. No. 26448.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • April 14, 1964
    ...(1924); Hinton v. Sims, 171 Miss. 741, 158 So. 141, 778 (1934); Gurley v. Tucker, 170 Miss. 565, 155 So. 189 (1934); People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620 3 Not without significance also is the decision in Stoner v. State of California, supra. There, although not stressed as ......
  • Schor v. Domery
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • June 20, 1962
    ...Latherizer Corp., 142 Misc. 487, 254 N.Y .S. 873) are readily distinguishable, for in that event, the Court never secured jurisdiction. [34 Misc.2d 866] However, while this Court would have jurisdiction to enter a final order awarding possession to the landlord and determining the rent due,......
4 cases
  • United States v. Warden of Rikers Island Penitentiary
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 14, 1965
    ...or destruction of evidence. Thus it appears that the judicially created exceptions would not be applicable, see People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. County Ct. 1962) (sharp rapping on the door followed by the words "open up" held insufficient to satisfy New Y......
  • People v. Floyd
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1968
    ...of his authority and purpose is an unlawful arrest. (People v. Griffin, 22 Page 955 A.D.2d 957, 256 N.Y.S.2d 115; People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 869, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620; also see People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 392--394, 280 N.Y.S.2d 356, 359--361, 227 N.E.2d 284, 386--387.) It has als......
  • United States v. Sims, Crim. No. 26448.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • April 14, 1964
    ...(1924); Hinton v. Sims, 171 Miss. 741, 158 So. 141, 778 (1934); Gurley v. Tucker, 170 Miss. 565, 155 So. 189 (1934); People v. Goldfarb, 34 Misc.2d 866, 229 N.Y.S.2d 620 3 Not without significance also is the decision in Stoner v. State of California, supra. There, although not stressed as ......
  • Schor v. Domery
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • June 20, 1962
    ...Latherizer Corp., 142 Misc. 487, 254 N.Y .S. 873) are readily distinguishable, for in that event, the Court never secured jurisdiction. [34 Misc.2d 866] However, while this Court would have jurisdiction to enter a final order awarding possession to the landlord and determining the rent due,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT