People v. Cantres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cantres

122 A.D.2d 65, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59130

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 65 (People v. Cantres) 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. Cantres, 122 A.D.2d 65, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mirabile, J.), rendered February 28, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Moskowitz, J.), after a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the evidence presented at the defendant’s Wade hearing, and find that the lineup in which he participated was not unduly suggestive. We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, 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 (Mirabile, J.), rendered February 28, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Moskowitz, J.), after a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the evidence presented at the defendant’s Wade hearing, and find that the lineup in which he participated was not unduly suggestive. We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 65, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cantres-nyappdiv-1986.