People v. Clinding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clinding

177 A.D.2d 639

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D.2d 639 (People v. Clinding) 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. Clinding, 177 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.), rendered March 29, 1989, convicting her of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The 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 contention of the defendant, the hearing court did not err in finding that the witnesses’ in-court identifications were supported by an independent source. The record reveals that both witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the defendant at close proximity during her commission of the crime, her struggle with the complainant, and her flight from security officers (see, People v Rivera, 22 NY2d 453, cert denied 395 US 964; People v Williams, 156 AD2d 497; People v Johnson, 146 AD2d 587).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Harwood, Eiber and O’Brien, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.), rendered March 29, 1989, convicting her of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The 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 contention of the defendant, the hearing court did not err in finding that the witnesses’ in-court identifications were supported by an independent source. The record reveals that both witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the defendant at close proximity during her commission of the crime, her struggle with the complainant, and her flight from security officers (see, People v Rivera, 22 NY2d 453, cert denied 395 US 964; People v Williams, 156 AD2d 497; People v Johnson, 146 AD2d 587).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Harwood, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clinding-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack