People v. Mikolasko

Decision Date03 November 1988
Citation535 N.Y.S.2d 167,144 A.D.2d 760
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas MIKOLASKO, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Scanlon & Vetrano (Michael Danaher, Jr., of counsel), Endicott, for appellant.

Gerald Mollen, Broome County Dist. Atty. (Carol Cocchiola, of counsel), Binghamton, for respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, YESAWICH and MERCURE, JJ.

KANE, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Coutant, J.), rendered August 15, 1986, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts).

As a result of information obtained through the use of a confidential informant equipped with a device to record conversations between the informant and defendant, a search warrant was issued authorizing the search of premises occupied by defendant. The fruits of the search consisted of numerous items of stolen property obtained through a series of burglaries that occurred between 1983 and 1985, all of which had been under investigation by a multiunit law enforcement agency. In the recorded conversations, defendant admitted committing numerous burglaries during this period and, in particular, burglaries at the specific locations where he obtained possession of many of the items seized upon execution of the search warrant. Defendant was thereafter indicted and after a jury trial was convicted of four counts of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and two counts of grand larceny in the third degree.

In seeking reversal of his conviction, defendant contends that the evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant should not have been admitted in evidence at trial since the search warrant was improperly executed. He argues that at the time the officers appeared at his residence, they were not in possession of the warrant and did not produce it upon his request (see, CPL 690.50[1] ). In fact, they had a copy of the warrant with them, but had left it in the police car; they retrieved it from the car before the search began. In our view, there was substantial compliance with statutory requirements and the search was lawful (see, People v. Mahoney, 58 N.Y.2d 475, 462 N.Y.S.2d 410, 448 N.E.2d 1321; People v. Drapala, 93 A.D.2d 956, 463 N.Y.S.2d 70).

Defendant further contends that the taped conversations and questions directed to him on cross-examination placed evidence of uncharged crimes before the jury to his prejudice. It should be noted that defendant's defense at trial was that he wanted the informant to believe that he was a dealer in large amounts of stolen goods so that the informant would pay $3,000 in advance to defendant which would satisfy a debt alleged to have been owed by the informant to defendant. The record demonstrates that the line of questioning on cross-examination and the admissions on the tapes were properly before the jury on the issue of defendant's credibility. In order to attack the rather...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Oliver
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 2, 2019
    ...A.D.2d 753, 754, 716 N.Y.S.2d 671 [2000], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 764, 725 N.Y.S.2d 291, 748 N.E.2d 1087 [2001] ; People v. Mikolasko, 144 A.D.2d 760, 761, 535 N.Y.S.2d 167 [1988], lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 666, 543 N.Y.S.2d 409, 541 N.E.2d 438 [1989] ). Lastly, defendant's contention that he was den......
  • People v. Venditto
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 28, 1991
    ...880) and "presented testimony which would have supported the claim of innocence had the jury chosen to believe it" (People v. Mikolasko, 144 A.D.2d 760, 762, 535 N.Y.S.2d 167, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 666, 543 N.Y.S.2d 409, 541 N.E.2d Defendant further contends that he should have been permitte......
  • People v. Mikolasko
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 1989
    ...543 N.Y.S.2d 409 74 N.Y.2d 666, 541 N.E.2d 438 People v. Mikolasko (Thomas) COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK MAY 10, 1989 Simons, J. 144 A.D.2d 760, 535 N.Y.S.2d 167 App.Div. 3, Broome Denied ...

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