In re Abeola C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Abeola C.

83 A.D.3d 559, 922 N.Y.S.2d 28

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 21, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 559 (In re Abeola C.) 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

In re Abeola C., 83 A.D.3d 559, 922 N.Y.S.2d 28 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about February 9, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth and fifth degrees, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. The showup, conducted in very close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, was part of an unbroken chain of fast-paced events. Both the use of a showup and the manner in which it was conducted were justified by the exigencies of the case and the interest of prompt identification (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541 [1991]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]). There is no evidence that the identification was influenced by the fact that multiple witnesses arrived at the showup in the same police car (see People v Wilburn, 40 AD3d 508, 509 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 883 [2007]). The overall effect of the allegedly suggestive circumstances cited by defendant was not significantly greater than what is inherent in any showup (see People v Gatling, 38 AD3d 239, 240 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about February 9, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth and fifth degrees, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. The showup, conducted in very close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, was part of an unbroken chain of fast-paced events. Both the use of a showup and the manner in which it was conducted were justified by the exigencies of the case and the interest of prompt identification (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541 [1991]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]). There is no evidence that the identification was influenced by the fact that multiple witnesses arrived at the showup in the same police car (see People v Wilburn, 40 AD3d 508, 509 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 883 [2007]). The overall effect of the allegedly suggestive circumstances cited by defendant was not significantly greater than what is inherent in any showup (see People v Gatling, 38 AD3d 239, 240 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 559, 922 N.Y.S.2d 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-abeola-c-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack