People v. Affoon

32 A.D.3d 1042, 820 N.Y.S.2d 897

This text of 32 A.D.3d 1042 (People v. Affoon) 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. Affoon, 32 A.D.3d 1042, 820 N.Y.S.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), rendered November 19, 2004, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that [1043]*1043branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The showup identification procedure, which was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime, served to secure a prompt and reliable identification of the defendant (see People v Nieves, 26 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]; People v Hunt, 277 AD2d 911, 912 [2000]). The defendant’s contention that the showup identification was unduly suggestive is without merit (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544 [1991]; People v Loo, 14 AD3d 716 [2005]).

The defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a missing-witness charge. However, the court properly denied his motion concerning four of the five missing witnesses. Concerning the fifth witness, the court’s failure to provide a missing-witness charge was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Fields, 76 NY2d 761 [1990]; People v Morgan, 228 AD2d 704, 705 [1996]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Fields
76 N.Y.2d 761 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
People v. Duuvon
571 N.E.2d 654 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
People v. Loo
14 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Nieves
26 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Morgan
228 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Hunt
277 A.D.2d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.3d 1042, 820 N.Y.S.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-affoon-nyappdiv-2006.