People v. Abdul-Latif

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Abdul-Latif

262 A.D.2d 567, 691 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6992

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 567 (People v. Abdul-Latif) 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

People v. Abdul-Latif, 262 A.D.2d 567, 691 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered December 18, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the lineup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered December 18, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the lineup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 567, 691 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abdul-latif-nyappdiv-1999.