People v. Backer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Backer

242 A.D.2d 386, 661 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8453

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

DecidedAugust 25, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 386 (People v. Backer) 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. Backer, 242 A.D.2d 386, 661 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered May 1, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dunlop, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

[387]*387Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police were justified in approaching his car, which was idling on the side of a traffic lane (see, People v Williams, 167 AD2d 236). Further, the brief detainment of the defendant, who matched the description given by the victim, for a prompt identification was proper given that the robbery had occurred only three blocks away and only 20 minutes earlier (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234; People v Attebery, 223 AD2d 714).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see also, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Brown, 223 AD2d 550; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), or without merit. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered May 1, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dunlop, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

[387]*387Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police were justified in approaching his car, which was idling on the side of a traffic lane (see, People v Williams, 167 AD2d 236). Further, the brief detainment of the defendant, who matched the description given by the victim, for a prompt identification was proper given that the robbery had occurred only three blocks away and only 20 minutes earlier (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234; People v Attebery, 223 AD2d 714).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see also, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Brown, 223 AD2d 550; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), or without merit. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 386, 661 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-backer-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack