People v. Dow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dow

202 A.D.2d 926, 610 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3066

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Dow) 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. Dow, 202 A.D.2d 926, 610 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered December 14, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant, who pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree following his arrest for selling cocaine to undercover police officers, argues that County Court erred in not granting his motion to suppress identification testimony. In our view, this motion was properly denied. While County Court erred in finding that the photographic identifications by the law enforcement personnel were confirmatory in nature, the fact remains that the photo array was properly conducted and not impermissibly suggestive. Further, we agree that there was an independent basis for an in-court identification of defendant.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered December 14, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant, who pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree following his arrest for selling cocaine to undercover police officers, argues that County Court erred in not granting his motion to suppress identification testimony. In our view, this motion was properly denied. While County Court erred in finding that the photographic identifications by the law enforcement personnel were confirmatory in nature, the fact remains that the photo array was properly conducted and not impermissibly suggestive. Further, we agree that there was an independent basis for an in-court identification of defendant.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 926, 610 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dow-nyappdiv-1994.