People v. Clarke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clarke

55 A.D.2d 624, 389 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15356

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 624 (People v. Clarke) 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. Clarke, 55 A.D.2d 624, 389 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 30, 1976, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain identification testimony. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied. In the opinion of this court, the record herein contains clear and convincing evidence that any in-[625]*625court identification of the defendant by Clyde Banks, a prospective witness for the People, would be based upon a course of prior acquaintanceship and, therefore, would not be tainted by the admittedly suggestive pretrial identification procedure (see People v Carter, 30 NY2d 279; cf. People v Lebrón, 46 AD2d 776; People v Toro, 44 AD2d 848). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 30, 1976, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain identification testimony. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied. In the opinion of this court, the record herein contains clear and convincing evidence that any in-[625]*625court identification of the defendant by Clyde Banks, a prospective witness for the People, would be based upon a course of prior acquaintanceship and, therefore, would not be tainted by the admittedly suggestive pretrial identification procedure (see People v Carter, 30 NY2d 279; cf. People v Lebrón, 46 AD2d 776; People v Toro, 44 AD2d 848). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 624, 389 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clarke-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack