People v. Mirasola
| Decision Date | 12 June 1962 |
| Citation | 35 Misc.2d 886,231 N.Y.S.2d 645 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. Bernard MIRASOLA and Angelo Mirasola. |
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
James J. Hanrahan, New York City, for defendants, in support of motion.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., of New York County, by Edward M. Davidowitz, New York City, of counsel, in opposition to motion.
The defendants in three motions seek three separate and distinct forms of relief. The first motion is a demurrer to the indictment. The second motion is for an order permitting an inspection of the grand jury minutes or, in the alternative, a dismissal of the indictment. And the third motion is for an order suppressing evidence seized allegedly as the result of an illegal search and seizure.
The defendants have been indicted charged with two crimes. One, criminally buying and receiving stolen property as a felony; and two, criminally concealing and withholding stolen and wrongfully acquired property as felony.
The defendants' demurrer to the indictment is disallowed. There has been a complete failure on the part of the defendants to show that the indictment is in any manner deficient or defective. The indictment conforms substantially to the requirements of sections 275, 276, 278 and 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
An inspection of the grand jury minutes shows that the testimony before the grand jury, if uncontradicted or unexplained, would warrant a conviction by a trial jury. Under the circumstances, the defendants' motion to inspect the grand jury minutes or, in the alternative, to dismiss the indictment is denied.
The defendants' third motion for an order to suppress evidence seized allegedly as a result of an illegal search and seizure is supported only by the affidavit of the attorney for the defendants. That affidavit sets forth no facts which put in issue the question of whether the police seized property as a result of an illegal search. The defendants' attorney contents himself with making the unfounded statement, 'Concededly the police had no color of authority to enter the home of Bernard Mirasola who lived in a different county than the one in which he was under interrogation * * *.'
The burden is upon a defendant who claims that property was seized by the police allegedly as the result of an illegal search to initially put that fact in issue. This he can only do upon the defendants' own affidavit (People v. Cangione, 33 Misc.2d 23, 224 N.Y.S.2d 549). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc., 12702
...as one court has said, "[a]n affidavit should set forth the factual picture by a person who knows the facts"; People v. Mirasola, 35 Misc.2d 886, 887, 231 N.Y.S.2d 645 (1962); the York affidavit does Moreover, these facts would be "admissible in evidence" despite the defendant's claim that ......
-
People v. Harry
...77; People v. De Simone, 56 Misc.2d 289, 288 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Vasquez, 50 Misc.2d 12, 269 N.Y.S.2d 229; People v. Mirasolo, 35 Misc.2d 886, 231 N.Y.S.2d 645; People v. Cangione, 33 Misc.2d 23, 224 N.Y.S.2d If, upon a motion to suppress, the defendant by his own affidavit, or by the a......
-
People v. Buckman
...and has been specifically disapproved of by the courts. See Matter of Taylor, 265 App.Div. 858, 37 N.Y.S.2d 675; People v. Mirasola, 35 Misc.2d 886, 231 N.Y.S.2d 645; Cronin v. International Union, E.R. & M.W., 203 Misc. 196, 117 N.Y.S.2d The Affidavits of the defendant and a companion who ......
-
People v. Lucente
...by the defendant's attorney, was insufficient on its face and no hearing should have been held in the first place (People v. Mirasola, 35 Misc.2d 886, 231 N.Y.S.2d 645; People v. Cangione, 33 Misc.2d 23, 224 N.Y.S.2d Order reversed, and motion denied. * The warrant was also executed at resp......