People v. Bryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bryan

228 A.D.2d 244, 644 N.Y.2d 25, 644 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6526

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

DecidedJune 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 244 (People v. Bryan) 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. Bryan, 228 A.D.2d 244, 644 N.Y.2d 25, 644 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The fill-ins selected for defendant’s lineup were not so dissimilar in appearance to defendant as to make her stand out (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833). Although three of the four fill-ins, ages 42, 45 and 47, were older than defendant, who was 36 at the time, and only one was her age, all appeared to be roughly the same age, and, indeed, the complainant had described the assailant to the police as "in her forties” (see, People v Gonzalez, 173 AD2d 48, 56-57, lv denied 79 NY2d 1001). The minor height and weight differentials were minimized by having the participants sit (see, People v Tyler, 199 AD2d 102, lv denied 82 NY2d 931). And, although the fill-ins’ hairstyles differed from defendant’s, that fact is not significant where the complainant had merely described the robber’s hair as "short”, and defendant’s hairstyle was not particularly uncommon or unusual (see, People v Gega, 188 AD2d 305, 306, lv denied 81 NY2d 886). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

The fill-ins selected for defendant’s lineup were not so dissimilar in appearance to defendant as to make her stand out (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833). Although three of the four fill-ins, ages 42, 45 and 47, were older than defendant, who was 36 at the time, and only one was her age, all appeared to be roughly the same age, and, indeed, the complainant had described the assailant to the police as "in her forties” (see, People v Gonzalez, 173 AD2d 48, 56-57, lv denied 79 NY2d 1001). The minor height and weight differentials were minimized by having the participants sit (see, People v Tyler, 199 AD2d 102, lv denied 82 NY2d 931). And, although the fill-ins’ hairstyles differed from defendant’s, that fact is not significant where the complainant had merely described the robber’s hair as "short”, and defendant’s hairstyle was not particularly uncommon or unusual (see, People v Gega, 188 AD2d 305, 306, lv denied 81 NY2d 886). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 244, 644 N.Y.2d 25, 644 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bryan-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack