People v. Dean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dean

155 A.D.2d 868, 547 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14680

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 868 (People v. Dean) 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. Dean, 155 A.D.2d 868, 547 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony of the 10-year-old victim. She readily identified defendant’s photograph from an array shown to her at the hospital shortly after the incident. Although not previously aware of defendant’s name, she had seen him walking through her neighborhood and once at her home. There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the array was suggestive because his hairstyle was distinctive (see, People v Olkoski, 131 AD2d 706; People v Hawkins, 126 AD2d 747, lv denied 69 NY2d 1004). Because the array was not suggestive, it did not taint the later lineup identification. We have examined the other issues raised by counsel and by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and find that none has merit. [869]*869(Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Forma, J.— burglary, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony of the 10-year-old victim. She readily identified defendant’s photograph from an array shown to her at the hospital shortly after the incident. Although not previously aware of defendant’s name, she had seen him walking through her neighborhood and once at her home. There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the array was suggestive because his hairstyle was distinctive (see, People v Olkoski, 131 AD2d 706; People v Hawkins, 126 AD2d 747, lv denied 69 NY2d 1004). Because the array was not suggestive, it did not taint the later lineup identification. We have examined the other issues raised by counsel and by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and find that none has merit. [869]*869(Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Forma, J.— burglary, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 868, 547 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dean-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack