People v. Monaghan

OPINION OF THE COURT

David O. Boehm, J.

Defendant’s prior motion to prohibit the use for any purpose, including cross-examination, of a statement impermissibly obtained from him after an arrest warrant had been issued was denied by this court (Pine, J.) on the basis of the District Attorney’s concession that it would not be used as evidence-in-chief (see People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218). The court ruled that it could be used for purposes of impeachment, pursuant to Harris v New York (401 US 222). Defendant now makes this supplemental motion for the same relief, citing as new authority, United…