People v. Fennell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fennell

237 A.D.2d 459, 655 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2496

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 459 (People v. Fennell) 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. Fennell, 237 A.D.2d 459, 655 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered August 11, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to permit testimony of an expert in the field of eyewitness identification (see, People v Mooney, 76 NY2d 827; People v Kelley, 220 AD2d 456, 457; People v Wright, 161 AD2d 743; People v Gibbs, 157 AD2d 799; People v Foulks, 143 AD2d 1038, 1039). Furthermore, the deficiencies alleged by the defen[460]*460dant with respect to the accuracy of the identification made by the complainant were conveyed to the jury through cross-examination, counsel’s summation, and the court’s charge (see, People v Wright, supra, at 744; People v Gibbs, supra; People v Foulks, supra).

Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Santucci, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered August 11, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to permit testimony of an expert in the field of eyewitness identification (see, People v Mooney, 76 NY2d 827; People v Kelley, 220 AD2d 456, 457; People v Wright, 161 AD2d 743; People v Gibbs, 157 AD2d 799; People v Foulks, 143 AD2d 1038, 1039). Furthermore, the deficiencies alleged by the defen[460]*460dant with respect to the accuracy of the identification made by the complainant were conveyed to the jury through cross-examination, counsel’s summation, and the court’s charge (see, People v Wright, supra, at 744; People v Gibbs, supra; People v Foulks, supra).

Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 459, 655 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fennell-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack