People v. Dudasik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dudasik

112 A.D.2d 20, 490 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50652

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

DecidedJune 4, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 20 (People v. Dudasik) 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. Dudasik, 112 A.D.2d 20, 490 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The victim’s in-court identification of defendant was reliable, satisfied the required standards and was not tainted by his failure to identify defendant’s picture out of a photo array. Although defendant suffered from depression and was suicidal and had been hospitalized prior to trial because of these problems, there is no basis in this record to question his competence to stand trial (see, People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167, 171; People v Colville, 74 AD2d 928). Finally, assuming that the People’s witness Manillo was an accomplice, his testimony was cumulative and was corroborated by the victim and police (see, People v Pele, 101 AD2d 995). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Barr, J. — burglary, first degree, and other charges.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The victim’s in-court identification of defendant was reliable, satisfied the required standards and was not tainted by his failure to identify defendant’s picture out of a photo array. Although defendant suffered from depression and was suicidal and had been hospitalized prior to trial because of these problems, there is no basis in this record to question his competence to stand trial (see, People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167, 171; People v Colville, 74 AD2d 928). Finally, assuming that the People’s witness Manillo was an accomplice, his testimony was cumulative and was corroborated by the victim and police (see, People v Pele, 101 AD2d 995). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Barr, J. — burglary, first degree, and other charges.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 20, 490 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dudasik-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack