People v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Franco

300 A.D.2d 674, 751 N.Y.S.2d 778

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 674 (People v. Franco) 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. Franco, 300 A.D.2d 674, 751 N.Y.S.2d 778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the de[675]*675fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blackburne, J.), rendered May 15, 2001, as amended May 18, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third 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, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographic identification of the defendant by an undercover police officer was not unduly suggestive (see People v Blacknall, 216 AD2d 404).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the de[675]*675fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blackburne, J.), rendered May 15, 2001, as amended May 18, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third 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, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographic identification of the defendant by an undercover police officer was not unduly suggestive (see People v Blacknall, 216 AD2d 404).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 674, 751 N.Y.S.2d 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-franco-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack