People v. Brabham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brabham

271 A.D.2d 692, 707 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4465

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 692 (People v. Brabham) 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. Brabham, 271 A.D.2d 692, 707 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered September 11, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Blumenfeld, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

[693]*693Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The complainant identified the defendant in a lineup as her assailant. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographs of the lineup were not so unclear as to prevent the hearing court from determining whether it was impermissibly suggestive. The defendant and the five fillers appear to be of similar age, weight, and build, and had the same hairstyle, facial hair, and skin tone (see, People v Cintron, 226 AD2d 390; People v Veeney, 215 AD2d 605). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, 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 (Roman, J.), rendered September 11, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Blumenfeld, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

[693]*693Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The complainant identified the defendant in a lineup as her assailant. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographs of the lineup were not so unclear as to prevent the hearing court from determining whether it was impermissibly suggestive. The defendant and the five fillers appear to be of similar age, weight, and build, and had the same hairstyle, facial hair, and skin tone (see, People v Cintron, 226 AD2d 390; People v Veeney, 215 AD2d 605). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 692, 707 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brabham-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack