People v. Hanley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hanley

41 A.D.2d 953, 344 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4421

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

DecidedMay 21, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 953 (People v. Hanley) 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. Hanley, 41 A.D.2d 953, 344 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

By a prior order of this court on this appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 20, 1967, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, we affirmed the judgment by a three to two vote, but the Court of Appeals modified our order by remitting the case to the Criminal Term for a hearing on the issue of the in-court identification of defendant for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in this court (People v. Hanley, 32 A D 2d 1039, mod. 27 N Y 2d 648). Such hearing has been held and an order was made thereon by the Criminal Term dated May 6, 1971, which adjudged “as a matter of law that the pretrial identification of defendant did not violate his rights to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (People v. Ganci, 27 N Y 2d at p. 427).” Defendant has also appealed from said order. Judgment rendered June 20, 1967 and order dated May 6,1971 affirmed. No opinion. Martusello, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

By a prior order of this court on this appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 20, 1967, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, we affirmed the judgment by a three to two vote, but the Court of Appeals modified our order by remitting the case to the Criminal Term for a hearing on the issue of the in-court identification of defendant for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in this court (People v. Hanley, 32 A D 2d 1039, mod. 27 N Y 2d 648). Such hearing has been held and an order was made thereon by the Criminal Term dated May 6, 1971, which adjudged “as a matter of law that the pretrial identification of defendant did not violate his rights to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (People v. Ganci, 27 N Y 2d at p. 427).” Defendant has also appealed from said order. Judgment rendered June 20, 1967 and order dated May 6,1971 affirmed. No opinion. Martusello, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 953, 344 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hanley-nyappdiv-1973.