People v. Bones

125 A.D.2d 931, 510 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63106
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 931 (People v. Bones) 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. Bones, 125 A.D.2d 931, 510 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously modified, on the law, and as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from a judgment of conviction for third degree robbery (Penal Law § 160.05) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), defendant argues that the court erred in not dismissing the petit larceny as a lesser included offense to the robbery and in denying his motion to suppress an identification by complainant based upon an allegedly suggestive photo array.

Only the first claim has merit. Since petit larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery (see, People v Grier, 37 NY2d 847, 848; People v Jones, 101 AD2d 738), the court was obligated to dismiss the larceny conviction (CPL 300.40 [3] [b]).

Defendant’s claim regarding the identification is based on the fact that the police showed a single photograph of the defendant to the robbery victim after she had already selected another photograph of him from a photo array. Even if the photographic identification was questionable, the victim’s positive identification of defendant in court had an independent basis given that the victim had an opportunity to view defen[932]*932dant face to face, a few feet away, under bright light, during an encounter that lasted approximately 10 minutes (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 US 98, 114; People v Ballot, 20 NY2d 600; cf. People v Hall, 81 AD2d 644).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is modified by reversing defendant’s conviction for petit larceny and in all other respects the judgment is affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — robbery, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Brown
269 A.D.2d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Mikel
237 A.D.2d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.2d 931, 510 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bones-nyappdiv-1986.