Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sammy Fulton, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1983-02-17
Citations: 58 N.Y.2d 914
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sammy Fulton, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 914–916

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sammy Fulton, Appellant.
Argued January 12, 1983;
decided February 17, 1983
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Abigail Everett and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Katherine N. Rose and Barbara D. Underwood of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Even if we were to assume, as defendant contends, that his pro se demand for production or disclosure of the informant encompassed a request for an in camera inquiry-in accordance with the procedures outlined in People v Darden (34 NY2d 177, 181), the People's inability to produce her at the hearing the Appellate Division directed did not mandate suppression of the items seized at the time of defendant's arrest. For the record supports both the finding that the informant existed and that the People made diligent efforts to comply with the direction to find her (cf. People v Jenkins, 41 NY2d 307). Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny the hearing. In sum, we find no reason to overrule the determination that, even absent disclosure, there was a sufficient showing of probable cause (People v Leyva, 38 NY2d 160, 172).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.