People v. DeLarosa

228 A.D.2d 273, 644 N.Y.2d 34, 644 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6737
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. DeLarosa. Read the opinion of the Court — 218 A.D.2d 667

Opinion

Accepting the hearing court’s findings of credibility (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), defendant has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 US 833) that the first officer’s stationhouse identification of him, while he was unrestrained and not at that point a suspect, was somehow prompted or other than inadvertent, and therefore suppressible as a suggestive police identification procedure (see, People v Acosta, 181 AD2d 577, lv denied 79 NY2d 1045; People v Sanders, 176 AD2d 477, lv denied 79 NY2d 831). In any event, the subsequent [274]*274lineup identification by another officer was valid regardless of the validity of the first identification (People v Washington, 160 AD2d 205, lv denied 76 NY2d 798, 992), and there was ample independent source for the in-court identifications by both officers. We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

People v. DeLarosa, 228 A.D.2d 273, 644 N.Y.2d 34, 644 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 273 (People v. DeLarosa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Chipp
552 N.E.2d 608 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
People v. Brooks
596 N.E.2d 408 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Washington
160 A.D.2d 205 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Sanders
176 A.D.2d 477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Acosta
181 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)