People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Daniels

128 A.D.2d 631, 513 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44321

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 631 (People v. Daniels) 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. Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 631, 513 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered November 5, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and [632]*632imposing 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.

Under the circumstances of this case the hearing court correctly found that the identifying witness had an independent source for his identification. The witness viewed the defendant from a distance of inches, under very good lighting conditions, for two or three minutes during the robbery which took place inside a subway token booth (see, People v Smalls, 112 AD2d 173). We have considered the defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, 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, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered November 5, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and [632]*632imposing 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.

Under the circumstances of this case the hearing court correctly found that the identifying witness had an independent source for his identification. The witness viewed the defendant from a distance of inches, under very good lighting conditions, for two or three minutes during the robbery which took place inside a subway token booth (see, People v Smalls, 112 AD2d 173). We have considered the defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 631, 513 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-daniels-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack