People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Anderson

107 A.D.2d 751, 484 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42661

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 107 A.D.2d 751 (People v. Anderson) 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. Anderson, 107 A.D.2d 751, 484 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered February 10, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although evidence of a photo array and a lineup was suppressed, it was not error to permit the victim’s in-court identification of defendant because the victim had ample opportunity to view defendant during the perpetration of the crime, which provided an independent basis therefore (see People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600; People v Griffin, 106 AD2d 402; People v Burnett, 81 AD2d 868). We further note that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to prove that the victim suffered “substantial pain” within the meaning of subdivision 9 of section 10.00 and subdivision 2 of section 160.10 of the Penal Law. Therefore, defendant’s motion for dismissal of the robbery in the second degree charge was properly denied (see People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726, 727; People v Coward, 100 AD2d 628). Finally, there is no basis for finding that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the sentence imposed or that we should exercise our discretion by reducing the sentence (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered February 10, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although evidence of a photo array and a lineup was suppressed, it was not error to permit the victim’s in-court identification of defendant because the victim had ample opportunity to view defendant during the perpetration of the crime, which provided an independent basis therefore (see People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600; People v Griffin, 106 AD2d 402; People v Burnett, 81 AD2d 868). We further note that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to prove that the victim suffered “substantial pain” within the meaning of subdivision 9 of section 10.00 and subdivision 2 of section 160.10 of the Penal Law. Therefore, defendant’s motion for dismissal of the robbery in the second degree charge was properly denied (see People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726, 727; People v Coward, 100 AD2d 628). Finally, there is no basis for finding that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the sentence imposed or that we should exercise our discretion by reducing the sentence (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 751, 484 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anderson-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack