General
Patricia A. Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents; Ronald A. Mavity, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents; Judith L. Mavity, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents; Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents
22 A.D.2d 1008·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1964·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
(December 10, 1964)
Patricia A. Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents. Ronald A. Mavity, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents. Judith L. Mavity, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents. Herbert Mavity, Appellant, v. Darlene R. Wehner et al., Respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal- to either party. Memorandum: In affirming the denial .of a motion to suppress a statement obtained by a private person in.violation of section 270-to of the Penal Law we also desire to point out that there is no statutory-provision for this motion. As to the admissibility of the' statement in question (see Sackler v. Sackler, 15 N Y 2d 40; Neff v. Franklinville Roofing Co., 308 N. Y. 946; Bloodgood v. Lynch, 293 N. Y. 308; Matter of Thanhauser v. Milprint, Inc., 9 A D 2d 833). (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion to suppress a statement given defendants by plaintiff, Patricia A. Mavity.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.