Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Murphy, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1981-12-23
Citations: 55 N.Y.2d 819
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Murphy, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 819–821

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Murphy, Appellant.
Decided December 23, 1981
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Elaine Platt for appellant.
Eugene Gold, District Attorney {.Michael J. Halberstam of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
On summary consideration, order affirmed. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that defendant did not consent to having the police enter his apartment. The presence of the four uniformed officers, the fact that one officer placed his hand on the door to the apartment, and the fact that defendant was clad in his underwear at the time in question are only factors to be taken into account when determining whether consent was voluntarily given. (People v Kuhn, 33 NY2d 203, 208-209.) Under the circumstances of this case, the record before us offers no reason to disturb the affirmed determination that defendant voluntarily consented to the police entry into his apartment.
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.