People v Katz
2026 NY Slip Op 50435(U)
March 30, 2026
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County
Ilona B. Coleman, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v
Hillary Katz, Defendant.
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County
Decided on March 30, 2026
CR-030033-25NY
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York County (Brooke Siegler of counsel), for plaintiff.
Konta, Georges, and Buza, P.C., New York City (John Buza of counsel), for defendant.
Ilona B. Coleman, J.
[*1]By omnibus motion, the defendant moves for an order suppressing the fruits of her seizure and arrest (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413 [1975], Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1978]); precluding evidence of her alleged refusal to submit to a chemical test (VTL 1194 [2] [f]); suppressing a noticed statement (People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]); and precluding the People from introducing unnoticed statements or identifications at trial (CPL 710.30 [3]).
The motion to suppress is granted to the extent that a combined Huntley/Dunaway hearing is ordered pretrial. The parties' allegations create an issue of fact that must be resolved at a hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]). The court, in an exercise of discretion, also orders a pretrial Ingle hearing. It should be noted that the People's specific factual allegations suggest that no traffic stop was actually conducted. The People allege that the defendant was "dragged out the trunk of her vehicle, as the front of the vehicle was so destroyed that emergency workers and bystanders could not safely remove the defendant through the front of the car" (People's affirmation, p. 2). The defense motion appears to concede that the defendant was arrested after a crash, but it also alleges specifically that "[the defendant's] vehicle was stopped by law enforcement" (affirmation of defense counsel, p. 2). Defense counsel seems to base his position that there was a vehicle stop on the criminal complaint, which he asserts contains a sworn allegation that the defendant was operating a car when she was seized (see id.). The complaint, however, makes no such statement. Regardless, ordering an Ingle hearing in addition to the already-ordered Huntley and Dunaway hearings will not meaningfully expand the scope of the proceedings, especially if there was no traffic stop in this case.
The motion to preclude evidence of the defendant's alleged refusal to submit to a chemical test is granted to the extent that a refusal hearing is ordered (VTL § 1194 [2] [f]).
Finally, the motion to preclude unnoticed statement or identification evidence is denied as unripe. The defense can renew its preclusion motion if and when the People serve belated notice or otherwise attempt to introduce such unnoticed evidence at trial.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: March 30, 2026
New York, NY
Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.