People v. Burden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burden

131 A.D.2d 494, 516 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47944

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

DecidedJune 1, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 494 (People v. Burden) 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. Burden, 131 A.D.2d 494, 516 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.), rendered November 29, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Agresta, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly declined to suppress the complainant’s identification testimony. Since the evidence established that the defendant and the complainant were known to each other, the station house identification was more in the nature of a confirmation than an identification and thus no issue as to the suggestiveness of the procedure utilized was presented (see, People v Tas, 51 NY2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543; People v Lang, 122 AD2d 226, lv denied 68 NY2d 1001). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Harwood, 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 (Balbach, J.), rendered November 29, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Agresta, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly declined to suppress the complainant’s identification testimony. Since the evidence established that the defendant and the complainant were known to each other, the station house identification was more in the nature of a confirmation than an identification and thus no issue as to the suggestiveness of the procedure utilized was presented (see, People v Tas, 51 NY2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543; People v Lang, 122 AD2d 226, lv denied 68 NY2d 1001). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 494, 516 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burden-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack