In re Daniel S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daniel S.

207 A.D.2d 674, 616 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645

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

DecidedSeptember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 674 (In re Daniel S.) 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 S., 207 A.D.2d 674, 616 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Susan Larabee, J.), entered June 7, 1993, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute grand larceny in the fourth degree, and conditionally discharged appellant for twelve months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly denied appellant’s motion for a Wade hearing on the ground that suggestiveness was not a concern because the victim and appellant were known to one another (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552). At the hearing, the victim testified that he knew appellant by his nickname, had heard appellant’s friends call him by such name, had seen him on numerous occasions in the neighborhood, and knew the block where appellant lived and that he did not attend the same school as the victim because appellant was somewhat older. Contrary to appellant’s contentions, while appellant was not visually identified by the victim’s cousin when appellant’s name was first mentioned to the victim, and appellant was not subsequently noticed because of any distinguishing physical characteristics (cf., Matter of Raul F., 186 AD2d 74), the absence of these factors was of no moment in light of the other evidence of complainant’s familiarity with appellant. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Susan Larabee, J.), entered June 7, 1993, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute grand larceny in the fourth degree, and conditionally discharged appellant for twelve months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly denied appellant’s motion for a Wade hearing on the ground that suggestiveness was not a concern because the victim and appellant were known to one another (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552). At the hearing, the victim testified that he knew appellant by his nickname, had heard appellant’s friends call him by such name, had seen him on numerous occasions in the neighborhood, and knew the block where appellant lived and that he did not attend the same school as the victim because appellant was somewhat older. Contrary to appellant’s contentions, while appellant was not visually identified by the victim’s cousin when appellant’s name was first mentioned to the victim, and appellant was not subsequently noticed because of any distinguishing physical characteristics (cf., Matter of Raul F., 186 AD2d 74), the absence of these factors was of no moment in light of the other evidence of complainant’s familiarity with appellant. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 674, 616 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-s-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack