People v. Blunt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blunt

272 A.D.2d 57, 707 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914

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

DecidedMay 2, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 57 (People v. Blunt) 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. Blunt, 272 A.D.2d 57, 707 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered December 3, 1997, convicting defendant, after a non-jury trial, of six counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 21/4 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Upon learning new facts during this nonjury trial, the court properly reopened the Wade hearing, whereupon it suppressed the out-of-court identification. In addition, the court found that an independent source for the identification existed, giving great weight to the complainant’s ability to remember defendant’s face as the result of past encounters (see, People v Brown, 34 NY2d 879).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered December 3, 1997, convicting defendant, after a non-jury trial, of six counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 21/4 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Upon learning new facts during this nonjury trial, the court properly reopened the Wade hearing, whereupon it suppressed the out-of-court identification. In addition, the court found that an independent source for the identification existed, giving great weight to the complainant’s ability to remember defendant’s face as the result of past encounters (see, People v Brown, 34 NY2d 879).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 57, 707 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blunt-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack