People v. Cando

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cando

68 A.D.3d 479, 888 N.Y.2d 886

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 479 (People v. Cando) 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. Cando, 68 A.D.3d 479, 888 N.Y.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[480]*480The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification. The victim had a sufficient opportunity to observe defendant, gave a detailed and accurate description, and made a reliable lineup identification.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The hearing evidence, including the lineup photographs, establishes that the lineup was not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). Defendant was not noticeably younger than the other participants, and the police successfully concealed anything distinctive about defendant’s hairstyle by having all the participants wear hats. Concur — Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Renwick, Freedman and Roman, JJ.

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

[480]*480The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification. The victim had a sufficient opportunity to observe defendant, gave a detailed and accurate description, and made a reliable lineup identification.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The hearing evidence, including the lineup photographs, establishes that the lineup was not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). Defendant was not noticeably younger than the other participants, and the police successfully concealed anything distinctive about defendant’s hairstyle by having all the participants wear hats. Concur — Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Renwick, Freedman and Roman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 479, 888 N.Y.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cando-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack