People v. Delacruz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delacruz

13 A.D.3d 642, 786 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15744

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 2004·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered December 19, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely notice of alibi witnesses, the trial court providently [643]*643exercised its discretion in precluding their testimony (see CPL 250.20 [1]; People v Bhuiyan, 295 AD2d 622 [2002]; People v Bonner, 287 AD2d 728 [2001]; People v Wade, 277 AD2d 475, 476 [2000]).

An alleged deprivation of the constitutional right to counsel at a lineup may be raised on appeal, irrespective of whether such claim has been preserved for appellate review (see People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773 [1983]; People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218, 221 [1980]). However, since the defendant did not raise this issue at the pretrial suppression hearing, the record is insufficient to review it on appeal (see People v Kinchen, supra at 773-774). H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, 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, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered December 19, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely notice of alibi witnesses, the trial court providently [643]*643exercised its discretion in precluding their testimony (see CPL 250.20 [1]; People v Bhuiyan, 295 AD2d 622 [2002]; People v Bonner, 287 AD2d 728 [2001]; People v Wade, 277 AD2d 475, 476 [2000]).

An alleged deprivation of the constitutional right to counsel at a lineup may be raised on appeal, irrespective of whether such claim has been preserved for appellate review (see People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773 [1983]; People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218, 221 [1980]). However, since the defendant did not raise this issue at the pretrial suppression hearing, the record is insufficient to review it on appeal (see People v Kinchen, supra at 773-774). H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

People v. Delacruz, 13 A.D.3d 642, 786 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

13 A.D.3d 642 (People v. Delacruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related