People v. Crossen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crossen

269 A.D.2d 541, 704 N.Y.S.2d 503, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1910

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 541 (People v. Crossen) 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. Crossen, 269 A.D.2d 541, 704 N.Y.S.2d 503, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second 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 and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police had reasonable suspicion to detain him for a showup identification. Although the defendant did not exactly match the description of one of the perpetrators, the differences were minor, and the information possessed by the police was sufficient to justify the brief, minimally-intrusive detention of the defendant until the complainant arrived six minutes later (see, People v Johnson, 245 AD2d 112; People v Rowe, 236 AD2d 637, 638). Since the showup was held in close temporal and spatial proximity to the robbery, and the defendant was neither surrounded by uniformed police officers nor handcuffed at the time that the complainant viewed him, the showup was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537; People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543; People v Morgan, 226 AD2d 398, 401).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, S. Miller and H. Miller, 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, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second 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 and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police had reasonable suspicion to detain him for a showup identification. Although the defendant did not exactly match the description of one of the perpetrators, the differences were minor, and the information possessed by the police was sufficient to justify the brief, minimally-intrusive detention of the defendant until the complainant arrived six minutes later (see, People v Johnson, 245 AD2d 112; People v Rowe, 236 AD2d 637, 638). Since the showup was held in close temporal and spatial proximity to the robbery, and the defendant was neither surrounded by uniformed police officers nor handcuffed at the time that the complainant viewed him, the showup was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537; People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543; People v Morgan, 226 AD2d 398, 401).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 541, 704 N.Y.S.2d 503, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crossen-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack