People v. Williams, 2021-51129

CourtNew York City Court
Writing for the CourtHON. LYNDON D. WILLIAMS JUDGE
PartiesThe People of the State of New York, v. Jermaine Williams, Defendant.
Decision Date29 November 2021
Docket NumberCR-00670-21,2021-51129

The People of the State of New York,

Jermaine Williams, Defendant.

No. 2021-51129

Docket No. CR-00670-21

City Court of Mount Vernon, Kings County

November 29, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

Westchester County District Attorney Mount Vernon branch Judith E. Permutt, Esq. Attorney for Defendant


The defendant, charged by a superseding misdemeanor information with one count of Petit Larceny (PL § 155.25), one count of Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26) and one count of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (PL § 195.05), makes this omnibus motion seeking an order: 1) dismissing Count Three of the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL § 170.30 on the grounds that it is facially insufficient; 2) suppressing physical evidence recovered from the defendant, or in the alternative, a Dunaway/Mapp hearing; 3) suppressing statements made by the defendant, or in the alternative, a Dunaway/Huntley hearing; 4) suppressing any identification of the defendant, or in the alternative, a Dunaway/Wade hearing; and 5) precluding defendant's prior convictions and/or bad acts.

The People have consented to Huntley and Sandoval hearings. The People otherwise oppose the defendant's motion.

With respect to defendant's request for Dunaway and Mapp hearings, defendant has failed to provide any sworn allegations of fact to support his conclusory allegation that his arrest was unlawful or that the police recovered physical evidence as the result of an illegal search. The Court finds that the defendant has failed to raise a factual challenge to the legality of his arrest. His mere unsupported assertion that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him does not mandate a probable cause hearing. See People v. Jones, 95 N.Y.2d 415 (2001). Likewise, his unsupported assertion that the police recovered physical evidence as the result of an illegal search does not mandate a Mapp hearing. CPL § 710.60(3)(b). As such, the defendant's motions for Dunaway and Mapp hearings are denied.

Defendant's motion for a Wade hearing is denied at this time based upon the allegation in the victim's supporting deposition that she and the defendant are known to each other. Rather, the Court orders that a Rodriguez hearing be held to evaluate the victim's familiarity with the defendant. If, after holding a Rodriguez hearing, the Court determines that there is legally insufficient familiarity between the parties, the defendant may renew her application for a Wade hearing to determine whether the in person identification of the defendant was unduly suggestive. See CPL § 710.60(3)(b).

The defendant's request for a Huntley hearing is granted on...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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