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. Moses Suarez, Defendant–Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J. at hearing; A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered January 17, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his videotaped statement to an Assistant District Attorney. To the extent the police made a warrantless entry in violation of Payton v. New York (445 U.S. 573 [1980] ), the statement, made at the District Attorney's Office 20 hours later, was sufficiently attenuated from any taint arising from the entry (see e.g. People v. Santos, 3 AD3d 317 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 746 [2004] ). Although the court suppressed an earlier statement to a detective, solely on the ground of lack of attenuation from the warrantless entry, the videotaped statement was attenuated from the suppressed statement as well (see People v. Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 130–134 [2005] ).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348–349 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of any discrepancies between the victims' testimony and their prior statements to the police.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 639
Decided: March 29, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)