¶1Order 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 *1009order 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.
22 A.D.2d 1008
Mavity v. Wehner
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 10, 1964
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1964-12-10
Relies on Bloodgood v. Lynch · Claim of Neff v. Franklinville Roofing Co.
Decided 1964-12-10