People v. Ambrose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ambrose

305 A.D.2d 232, 758 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5567

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

DecidedMay 15, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 232 (People v. Ambrose) 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. Ambrose, 305 A.D.2d 232, 758 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J., at hearing; Ronald Zweibel, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered November 9, 2001, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statement. The hearing record establishes that the police obtained the statement during an investigatory stop that did not require Miranda warnings (see Berkemer v McCarty, 468 US 420, 436-437 [1984]; People v Bennett, 70 NY2d 891 [1987]).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s [233]*233determinations concerning identification. The victim, who had sufficient opportunity to observe defendant during the crime, made a prompt and reliable identification which was corroborated by an identification made by an off-duty police officer who witnessed the robbery.

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Williams, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J., at hearing; Ronald Zweibel, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered November 9, 2001, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statement. The hearing record establishes that the police obtained the statement during an investigatory stop that did not require Miranda warnings (see Berkemer v McCarty, 468 US 420, 436-437 [1984]; People v Bennett, 70 NY2d 891 [1987]).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s [233]*233determinations concerning identification. The victim, who had sufficient opportunity to observe defendant during the crime, made a prompt and reliable identification which was corroborated by an identification made by an off-duty police officer who witnessed the robbery.

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Williams, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 232, 758 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ambrose-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack