People v. Bostick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bostick

100 A.D.2d 721, 473 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17707

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 721 (People v. Bostick) 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. Bostick, 100 A.D.2d 721, 473 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the identification testimony. No hearing was required concerning the identification procedures at the preliminary hearing since the affidavit in support of the motion to suppress failed to set forth sworn allegations of fact indicating that the procedures were impermissibly suggestive (see United States v Gaines, 450 F2d 186, 195-196; People v Alexander, 88 AD2d 749). ¶ The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence proffered by the defendant that the victims, long after the crime, failed to identify the defendant from a Xerographic copy of a photographic array. The copy of defendant’s photograph was not properly authenticated, for there was no showing that it correctly portrayed a likeness of the defendant (see Richardson, Evidence [10th edl, § 137). On the contrary, one identification witness testified that the copy was too dark and indistinct for her to make out the face. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Mark, J. — grand larceny, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the identification testimony. No hearing was required concerning the identification procedures at the preliminary hearing since the affidavit in support of the motion to suppress failed to set forth sworn allegations of fact indicating that the procedures were impermissibly suggestive (see United States v Gaines, 450 F2d 186, 195-196; People v Alexander, 88 AD2d 749). ¶ The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence proffered by the defendant that the victims, long after the crime, failed to identify the defendant from a Xerographic copy of a photographic array. The copy of defendant’s photograph was not properly authenticated, for there was no showing that it correctly portrayed a likeness of the defendant (see Richardson, Evidence [10th edl, § 137). On the contrary, one identification witness testified that the copy was too dark and indistinct for her to make out the face. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Mark, J. — grand larceny, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 721, 473 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bostick-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack