People v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Abrams

256 A.D.2d 133, 683 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14514

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 133 (People v. Abrams) 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. Abrams, 256 A.D.2d 133, 683 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered November 9, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 6V2 to 13 years and 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The record reveals that there was no suggestiveness in the conduct of the lineups, and that all participants appeared sufficiently similar so that there was no substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see, People v Cheung, 255 AD2d 102).

The existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL article 440 motion, establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered November 9, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 6V2 to 13 years and 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The record reveals that there was no suggestiveness in the conduct of the lineups, and that all participants appeared sufficiently similar so that there was no substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see, People v Cheung, 255 AD2d 102).

The existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL article 440 motion, establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 133, 683 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack