People v. Ingram

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 18 N.Y.3d 948, 944 N.Y.S.2d 470, 967 N.E.2d 695, 2012 NY Slip Op 2340

Decision Date: 3/29/2012

Docket Number: 43

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Ingram, 18 N.Y.3d 948, 944 N.Y.S.2d 470, 967 N.E.2d 695, 2012 NY Slip Op 2340 (2012)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2012

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tecoy Ingram, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Mitchell Goris Stokes & O’Sullivan, LLP, Cazenovia (Stewart F. Hancock, Jr., of counsel), and Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild and Piotr Banasiak of counsel), for appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell and Victoria M. White of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

CPL 470.15 (1) precludes the Appellate Division from reviewing an issue that was either decided in an appellant’s favor or was not decided by the trial court (see People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470 [1998]). In an appeal from an Appellate Division affirmance, CPL 470.35 (1) grants us no broader review power than that possessed by the Appellate Division. Here, without addressing the validity of Supreme Court’s rationale, the Appellate Division resolved defendant’s suppression application on a theory not reached by the suppression court.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.