People v. Dixon

157 A.D.2d 743, 550 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 486

This text of 157 A.D.2d 743 (People v. Dixon) 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. Dixon, 157 A.D.2d 743, 550 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered October 11, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing 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.

We find that the hearing court properly denied suppression of the showup identification made by the complainant within 10 minutes after the defendant was apprehended near the scene of the robbery. This showup occurred in close time and proximity to the event while the complainant’s memory was fresh and, under the circumstances, the showup was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Montanez, 149 AD2d 627; People v Mitchell, 131 AD2d 601; People v Ford, 110 AD2d 847; People v Soto, 87 AD2d 618).

The court’s Sandoval ruling that the People might conduct limited inquiry as to two of the defendant’s prior convictions to impeach his credibility was not improper (see, People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547; People v Rahman, 46 NY2d 882; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371; People v Gill, 138 AD2d 738; People v Scott, 118 AD2d 881).

As the defendant failed to establish that a legal issue exists with regard to his appeal which cannot be resolved by the reconstructed record of the missing transcript of the proceedings on one of the days of trial, reversal on this ground is not warranted (see, People v Glass, 43 NY2d 283; People v Rivera, 39 NY2d 519; People v Johnson, 145 AD2d 572; People v Suren, 131 AD2d 896; People v Smalls, 116 AD2d 675; People v Acevedo, 104 AD2d 946). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Fiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Sandoval
314 N.E.2d 413 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
People v. Rivera
349 N.E.2d 825 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
People v. Glass
372 N.E.2d 24 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
People v. Rahman
387 N.E.2d 614 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
People v. Pollock
407 N.E.2d 472 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
People v. Love
443 N.E.2d 948 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Riley
517 N.E.2d 520 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. Soto
87 A.D.2d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Acevedo
104 A.D.2d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Ford
110 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Smalls
116 A.D.2d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Scott
118 A.D.2d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Mitchell
131 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Suren
131 A.D.2d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Gill
138 A.D.2d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Johnson
145 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Montanez
149 A.D.2d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 A.D.2d 743, 550 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dixon-nyappdiv-1990.