People v. Crespo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crespo

111 A.D.2d 251, 489 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51378

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

DecidedMay 13, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 251 (People v. Crespo) 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. Crespo, 111 A.D.2d 251, 489 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.), rendered July 21, 1982, convicting him of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court properly allowed the People to introduce the identification testimony of Officer Connor. The People were not required to give defendant prior notice of Officer Connor’s testimony because she had not previously participated in a showup, lineup, photographic identification or any other pretrial identification procedure, and therefore the notice requirements of CPL 710.30 were inapplicable. In any case, any possible unfair surprise to defendant was alleviated by the court’s granting adjournments and delaying Officer Connor’s testimony in order to enable defense counsel to adequately prepare for cross-examination and to deal with this evidence. Accordingly, there was no prejudice.

Defendant’s other contentions have been considered and have been found to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.), rendered July 21, 1982, convicting him of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court properly allowed the People to introduce the identification testimony of Officer Connor. The People were not required to give defendant prior notice of Officer Connor’s testimony because she had not previously participated in a showup, lineup, photographic identification or any other pretrial identification procedure, and therefore the notice requirements of CPL 710.30 were inapplicable. In any case, any possible unfair surprise to defendant was alleviated by the court’s granting adjournments and delaying Officer Connor’s testimony in order to enable defense counsel to adequately prepare for cross-examination and to deal with this evidence. Accordingly, there was no prejudice.

Defendant’s other contentions have been considered and have been found to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 251, 489 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crespo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack