People v. Giancaspro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Giancaspro

26 A.D.3d 185, 807 N.Y.S.2d 875

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 185 (People v. Giancaspro) 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. Giancaspro, 26 A.D.3d 185, 807 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert H. Straus, J., at hearing; Edward M. Davidowitz, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 20, 2000, convicting defendant of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. There was no evidence adduced at the [186]*186hearing that cast any doubt on the fairness of the lineup, and an examination of the lineup photograph reveals that the fillers were reasonably similar in appearance to defendant and that any differences were not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert H. Straus, J., at hearing; Edward M. Davidowitz, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 20, 2000, convicting defendant of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. There was no evidence adduced at the [186]*186hearing that cast any doubt on the fairness of the lineup, and an examination of the lineup photograph reveals that the fillers were reasonably similar in appearance to defendant and that any differences were not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 185, 807 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-giancaspro-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack