Holman v. Ferdinand
228 A.D.2d 441, 643 N.Y.2d 409, 643 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6242
Opinion
A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 does not lie to review an order denying the branch of a defendant’s omnibus motion which is to suppress identification testimony (see, CPL 460.10 [1] [a]; Matter of Bull v Owens, 191 AD2d 692, 693; Matter of Hennessy v Gorman, 58 NY2d 806, 807). Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Holman v. Ferdinand, 228 A.D.2d 441, 643 N.Y.2d 409, 643 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 441 (Holman v. Ferdinand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hennessy v. Gorman
445 N.E.2d 644 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Bull v. Owens
191 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)