In re Kelvin V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kelvin V.

85 A.D.3d 666, 925 N.Y.S.2d 830

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

DecidedJune 28, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 666 (In re Kelvin V.) 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 Kelvin V., 85 A.D.3d 666, 925 N.Y.S.2d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding 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]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The evidence established that the victim had an ample opportunity to observe appellant during the robbery, and that he identified him only a few minutes later.

To the extent appellant is challenging the court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony, we find that the prompt, on-the-scene showup was not unduly suggestive (see e.g. People v Tramble, 60 AD3d 443 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 822 [2009]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels 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 March 16, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding 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]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The evidence established that the victim had an ample opportunity to observe appellant during the robbery, and that he identified him only a few minutes later.

To the extent appellant is challenging the court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony, we find that the prompt, on-the-scene showup was not unduly suggestive (see e.g. People v Tramble, 60 AD3d 443 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 822 [2009]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 666, 925 N.Y.S.2d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kelvin-v-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack