People v. Armstrong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Armstrong

110 A.D.2d 773, 488 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48674

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1985·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

On the record before us, we find, contrary to the determination of the hearing court, that there was probable cause for the defendant’s arrest and that the subsequent showup identification should have been admitted (People v Miner, 42 NY2d 937; People v Santana, 106 AD2d 523). In any event, the evidence produced at the hearing clearly established an independent source for the in-court identification. Accordingly, that branch of defendant’s motion which sought suppression of the complainant’s in-court identification was properly denied (People v Pleasant, 54 NY2d 972). Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

On the record before us, we find, contrary to the determination of the hearing court, that there was probable cause for the defendant’s arrest and that the subsequent showup identification should have been admitted (People v Miner, 42 NY2d 937; People v Santana, 106 AD2d 523). In any event, the evidence produced at the hearing clearly established an independent source for the in-court identification. Accordingly, that branch of defendant’s motion which sought suppression of the complainant’s in-court identification was properly denied (People v Pleasant, 54 NY2d 972). Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

People v. Armstrong, 110 A.D.2d 773, 488 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

110 A.D.2d 773 (People v. Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related