THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. ELIO TILLAN DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2015)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ELIO P. TILLAN, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

KA 10–00820

Decided: February 06, 2015

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21[1] ). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained through the use of an eavesdropping warrant. The warrant application established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, and contained a sufficient showing that normal investigative procedures had been tried and had failed or reasonably appeared to be unlikely to succeed (see CPL 700.15[1], [4]; People v. Lazo, 16 AD3d 1153, 1153–1154, lv denied 4 NY3d 887; People v. Truver, 244 A.D.2d 990, 991).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network