People v Randolph
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 14, 2018
City Court of Mount Vernon
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
James Randolph, Defendant.
18-2074
Westchester County District Attorney
Mount Vernon Branch
Judith E. Permutt, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
1 W. Prospect Avenue #231
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
Adrian N. Armstrong, J.
Defendant is charged by misdemeanor information with one count of Assault in the Third Degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.00.03, and one count of Harassment in the Second Degree in violation of Penal Law § 240.26(1).
Defendant moves for an order 1) suppressing physical evidence on the grounds that such evidence was unlawfully seized, or in the alternative, granting a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to determine the admissibility of tangible evidence; 2) suppressing certain statements allegedly made by defendant, or in the alternative, granting a Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of such statements; 3) precluding the People from using at trial defendant's prior criminal history or prior uncharged criminal, vicious, or immoral conduct; and 4) unsealing a search warrant application.
It is alleged that on July 14, 2018 at 1:00 p.m., at 300 Hayward Avenue in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester and State of New York the defendant got into a verbal altercation with his then girlfriend, La-Najah Faison. Thereafter, it is alleged the defendant choked and punched the victim in the face with a closed fist causing her to hit the right side of her face against exercise equipment. The victim left the premises and was transported to the police station by an uncle to report the incident. There at headquarters, the victim advised the police that she was in grave fear for her physical safety based on the defendant's conduct and also due to the fact that the defendant possessed two illegal firearms in the apartment where they both [*2]resided. The victim signed a voluntary waiver to search and seizure form and then led the police back to their home where she showed the officers a gravity knife and two firearms that were in the home. The police seized those items from the home. The defendant was subsequently placed under arrest for his criminal actions against the victim under this docket, as well as for the possession of the illegal guns and gravity knife that were charged under a separate docket (18-2073). Upon his arrest, it is alleged that at Mount Vernon Police headquarters, the defendant stated in substance to a member of the police department that he pushed the victim and that she tripped and fell into the exercise machine causing her injuries.
By way of this motion to suppress the physical evidence recovered, namely the weapons, defense counsel seeks to obtain discovery materials that pertain to the defendant's felony gun charges that are presently pending before this Court by way of felony complaint under a separate docket. Local criminal courts only have preliminary jurisdiction over felony offenses, "the jurisdiction of the local criminal court, where the felony complaint must be filed, is limited to the functions of determining (a) whether there is any reasonable basis for a Grand Jury to indict, and (b) the assurances required for the defendant's future appearances up to the time of defendant's first appearance in the superior court after indictment." See, Preiser, Peter, Mckinney's Consolidaed Law of New York, Practice Commentaries, C.P.L. § 180.10, p. 161 (2004). Pursuant to CPL § 710.50(1)(b), if a currently undetermined felony complaint is pending in a local criminal court, the motion to suppress evidence must be made in the superior court which would have trial jurisdiction of the offense or offenses charged were an indictment therefor to result. Basically, suppression motions in cases to be tried by indictment must be made after indictment in the superior court that will try the case (People v Smith, 41 AD2d 893 [4th Dept. 1973]). Thus, this is not the correct forum by which to litigate defendant's application to suppress the weapons that were recovered from his home. Moreover, the weapons recovered are not relevant in this action before the court which relates to the assault and harassment of the complaining witness. Likewise, this is not the correct forum by which to litigate defendant's application to unseal any search warrant obtained by law enforcement to seize the illegal guns that were found in his home.
As to the defendant's motion to suppress his statement allegedly made upon his arrest at the Mount Vernon Police Headquarters, the People contend that the defendant did not make any statements pertaining to the instant case where he is charged with Assault in the Third Degree and Harassment in the Second Degree. Contrary to the People's contention, in this action, the accusatory instrument reflects that the People provided CPL 710.30 statement notice that the defendant stated in substance that he pushed the victim and that she tripped and fell into the exercise machine causing her injuries. Defendant argues that the noticed statement by him was involuntarily made and procured through a custodial interrogation without first advising him of his Miranda rights.
All that is required to warrant a Huntley hearing is the mere claim that the defendant's statement was involuntary. People v. Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012 (1980); People v. Bingham, 144 AD2d 682 (2d Dept. 1988); Matter of Brian E., 206 AD2d 665 (3d Dept. 1994). Therefore, defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing is granted.
The Sandoval motion is granted on consent, and shall be renewed before the trial judge. Since the People have not indicated that they plan to introduce any evidence of defendant's prior [*3]bad acts on their direct case, the motion for a Ventimiglia hearing is denied as premature at this time. In the event the People later indicate they plan to introduce such evidence, the defendant may renew the motion before trial.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and to unseal a search warrant is denied. Defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing is granted. Defendant's request for a Sandoval hearing is respectfully referred to the trial judge. Defendant's motion for a Ventimiglia hearing is denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: September 14, 2018
Mount Vernon, New York
__________________________
HON. ADRIAN N. ARMSTRONG
City Judge of Mount Vernon
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
