People v. Hendrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hendrick

192 A.D.2d 1100, 596 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4119

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

DecidedApril 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 1100 (People v. Hendrick) 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. Hendrick, 192 A.D.2d 1100, 596 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the showup identification was unduly suggestive. According appropriate weight to the findings made by the suppression court (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), we conclude that the showup was conducted in the interest of prompt identification (see, People v Love, 57 [1101]*1101NY2d 1023, 1024; People v Minter, 186 AD2d 1035, lv denied 81 NY2d 764).

Defendant was apprehended a short distance from the crime scene within 20 minutes of the occurrence. He was returned to the area and positively identified as the perpetrator. Although defendant’s identification while he was handcuffed and seated in the rear of a police car "presses judicial tolerance to its limits”, the record supports the suppression court’s finding that it was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545; see also, People v Hunt, 187 AD2d 981; People v Jones, 149 AD2d 970, lv denied 74 NY2d 742). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Attempted Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Fallon, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the showup identification was unduly suggestive. According appropriate weight to the findings made by the suppression court (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), we conclude that the showup was conducted in the interest of prompt identification (see, People v Love, 57 [1101]*1101NY2d 1023, 1024; People v Minter, 186 AD2d 1035, lv denied 81 NY2d 764).

Defendant was apprehended a short distance from the crime scene within 20 minutes of the occurrence. He was returned to the area and positively identified as the perpetrator. Although defendant’s identification while he was handcuffed and seated in the rear of a police car "presses judicial tolerance to its limits”, the record supports the suppression court’s finding that it was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545; see also, People v Hunt, 187 AD2d 981; People v Jones, 149 AD2d 970, lv denied 74 NY2d 742). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Attempted Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Fallon, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 1100, 596 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hendrick-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack