People v. Burgos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burgos

212 A.D.2d 359, 623 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 934

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 359 (People v. Burgos) 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. Burgos, 212 A.D.2d 359, 623 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered December 12, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to &V2 years, to run consecutively to sentences imposed in connection with two unrelated convictions, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony at the suppression hearing established that there was no police-arranged identification procedure in this case. Defendant’s argument that the complainant’s identification of defendant may have been made in circumstances other than those testified to constituted mere speculation, and thus the hearing court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application to call the complainant at the hearing (see, People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 15). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered December 12, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to &V2 years, to run consecutively to sentences imposed in connection with two unrelated convictions, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony at the suppression hearing established that there was no police-arranged identification procedure in this case. Defendant’s argument that the complainant’s identification of defendant may have been made in circumstances other than those testified to constituted mere speculation, and thus the hearing court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application to call the complainant at the hearing (see, People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 15). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 359, 623 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burgos-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack