People v. Crawley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crawley

265 A.D.2d 905, 696 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Crawley) 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. Crawley, 265 A.D.2d 905, 696 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the out-of-court identification because the photograph of him was obtained in violation of 20 USC § 1232g (b) is unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Assuming, arguendo, that the statute was violated, we conclude that the “violation did not infringe upon any constitutional right of the defendant sufficient to warrant invocation of the exclusionary rule” (People v Patterson, 78 NY2d 711, 714). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the out-of-court identification because the photograph of him was obtained in violation of 20 USC § 1232g (b) is unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Assuming, arguendo, that the statute was violated, we conclude that the “violation did not infringe upon any constitutional right of the defendant sufficient to warrant invocation of the exclusionary rule” (People v Patterson, 78 NY2d 711, 714). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 905, 696 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crawley-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack