People v. Calise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Calise

303 A.D.2d 761, 757 N.Y.S.2d 453

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 761 (People v. Calise) 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. Calise, 303 A.D.2d 761, 757 N.Y.S.2d 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered March 29, 2001, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly held that the lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Townes, 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, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered March 29, 2001, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly held that the lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 761, 757 N.Y.S.2d 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-calise-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack