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
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 1996
StatusPublished
This text of 228 A.D.2d 441 (Holman v. Ferdinand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
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).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
228 A.D.2d 441, 643 N.Y.2d 409, 643 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holman-v-ferdinand-nyappdiv-1996.