People v. Betances

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Betances

268 A.D.2d 373, 700 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 373 (People v. Betances) 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. Betances, 268 A.D.2d 373, 700 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered March 25, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his contention that an eyewitness’s in-court identification should have been precluded due to the prosecution’s failure to provide proper notice under CPL 710.30 (1) (b) of a prior lineup identification and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the admission of the identification was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered March 25, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his contention that an eyewitness’s in-court identification should have been precluded due to the prosecution’s failure to provide proper notice under CPL 710.30 (1) (b) of a prior lineup identification and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the admission of the identification was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 373, 700 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-betances-nyappdiv-2000.