People v. Malinsky
| Decision Date | 02 March 1967 |
| Citation | 225 N.E.2d 748,19 N.Y.2d 262,279 N.Y.S.2d 20 |
| Parties | , 225 N.E.2d 748 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Morris MALINSKY, David Lustigman and Robert Felt, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Maurice Edelbaum, New York City, for motion.
No one opposed.
Upon the hearing which we directed when this case was previously before us (15 N.Y.2d 86, 262 N.Y.S.2d 65, 209 N.E.2d 694), the People declined to disclose the name of the informer, offered no evidence of his reliability and failed to adduce any other evidence sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause for the arrests of the defendants (52 Misc.2d 717, 278 N.Y.S.2d 15). Since, then, the search incident to those arrests was illegal, the motion to suppress the evidence thereby obtained should have been granted. It follows that the proof upon which the convictions rested fell short of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendants' motion to restore the appeal to the calendar is granted and, upon such restoration, the judgment of conviction should be reversed and the indictment dismissed.
Motion to restore appeal to the calendar of the Court of Appeals granted.
Judgment reversed and indictment dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. State
...(1st Cir.1962), 302 F.2d 48, 52; State v. Bates (1941), 63 Idaho 119, 117 P.2d 281, and generally People v. Malinsky (1965), 15 N.Y.2d 86, 262 N.Y.S.2d 65, 74, 209 N.E.2d 694, 700-701, subsequent proceedings, 52 Misc.2d 717, 278, N.Y.S.2d 15 (Sup.Ct. Queens Co.); 19 N.Y.2d 262, 279 N.Y.S.2d......
- James v. Powell
-
People v. Castro
...United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 84, Supra). Additionally, however, and this distinguishes the case from People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 262 N.Y.S.2d 65, 209 N.E.2d 694 and the cognate authorities as to disclosure cited in the dissent, it seems clear that after every other detail had......
-
People v. Havelka
...a rehearing to afford the People the opportunity to present additional evidence was first established in People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 262 N.Y.S.2d 65, 209 N.E.2d 694. In Malinsky at the suppression hearing, conducted solely to determine if the search and seizure was incident to a lawfu......