In re Willie T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Willie T.

284 A.D.2d 135, 725 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700

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

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 135 (In re Willie T.) 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 Willie T., 284 A.D.2d 135, 725 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1999, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted robbery in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. To the extent that appellant is challenging the court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony, we conclude that the motion was properly denied because the showup was justified by its close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime and was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Marlow, 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 Bednar, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1999, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted robbery in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. To the extent that appellant is challenging the court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony, we conclude that the motion was properly denied because the showup was justified by its close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime and was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 135, 725 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-willie-t-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack