Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeffrey HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J. at suppression hearing; Franklin Weissberg, J. on speedy trial motion; Nicholas Figueroa, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 13, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 1/212 to 5 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's speedy trial motion because the People were chargeable with, at most, 178 days. In this two-defendant, attempted murder case that culminated in a two-week, 13-witness trial, the 49-day adjournment to prepare for trial after motions, while rather lengthy, was reasonable under the circumstances (see, People v. Ali, 195 A.D.2d 368, 369, 600 N.Y.S.2d 55, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 804, 604 N.Y.S.2d 940, 624 N.E.2d 1035). Defendant's challenge to the seven-day period beginning October 23, 1996 is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record sufficiently establishes that this period of time was requested by defense counsel.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The detailed description of the uncommon car from which shots were fired at the identified citizen informants, along with the descriptions of the occupants and the closeness of the spatial and temporal factors, provided more than sufficient probable cause to arrest the occupants of the car (Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 46-47, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419; People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366, 373, 429 N.Y.S.2d 173, 406 N.E.2d 1066) and to search the car for a gun pursuant to the automobile exception.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 26, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)