In re Daniel E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daniel E.

82 A.D.3d 639, 919 N.Y.2d 333

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 639 (In re Daniel E.) 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 Daniel E., 82 A.D.3d 639, 919 N.Y.2d 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion. The showup identification was made in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, and it was not rendered unduly suggestive by any of the circumstances cited by appellant, each of which was either inherent in any showup or justified by the exigencies of the situation (see e.g. Matter of Terron B., 77 AD3d 499 [2010]). Appellant and the other suspects were lawfully detained on the basis of a joint description that was sufficiently specific, given the temporal and spatial factors, to provide reasonable suspicion (see e.g. People v Rodriguez, 262 AD2d 177 [1999]).

The court’s fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The victim testified that appellant was a member of the group that attacked him, and that every member of this group hit and kicked him. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

The court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion. The showup identification was made in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, and it was not rendered unduly suggestive by any of the circumstances cited by appellant, each of which was either inherent in any showup or justified by the exigencies of the situation (see e.g. Matter of Terron B., 77 AD3d 499 [2010]). Appellant and the other suspects were lawfully detained on the basis of a joint description that was sufficiently specific, given the temporal and spatial factors, to provide reasonable suspicion (see e.g. People v Rodriguez, 262 AD2d 177 [1999]).

The court’s fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The victim testified that appellant was a member of the group that attacked him, and that every member of this group hit and kicked him. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 639, 919 N.Y.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-e-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack