People v. Dingle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dingle

137 A.D.2d 553, 523 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 715

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.2d 553 (People v. Dingle) 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. Dingle, 137 A.D.2d 553, 523 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.), rendered November 30, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the hearing court’s conclusions that there was neither suggestiveness nor illegality in any of the identification procedures conducted by police detectives. Suppression of such testimony was, therefore, properly denied (see, People v Pleasant, 54 NY2d 972, cert denied 455 US 924).

The defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt 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 County Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.), rendered November 30, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the hearing court’s conclusions that there was neither suggestiveness nor illegality in any of the identification procedures conducted by police detectives. Suppression of such testimony was, therefore, properly denied (see, People v Pleasant, 54 NY2d 972, cert denied 455 US 924).

The defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 553, 523 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dingle-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack