People v. Hewitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hewitt

267 A.D.2d 326, 699 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 326 (People v. Hewitt) 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. Hewitt, 267 A.D.2d 326, 699 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered October 21, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, 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 is affirmed.

The hearing court properly declined to suppress the undercover police officer’s showup identification of the defendant. The court’s finding that the undercover officer’s viewing was confirmatory in nature should not be disturbed (see, People v Morales, 37 NY2d 262, 271). Although a month had elapsed between the drug sale and the arrest, the showup occurred minutes after the undercover officer spontaneously identified the defendant as he was entering a building in the area where the sale had taken place (see, People v King, 221 AD2d 370; People v Bazelias, 220 AD2d 443; People v Martindale, 202 AD2d 158). Bracken, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Schmidt, 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, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered October 21, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, 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 is affirmed.

The hearing court properly declined to suppress the undercover police officer’s showup identification of the defendant. The court’s finding that the undercover officer’s viewing was confirmatory in nature should not be disturbed (see, People v Morales, 37 NY2d 262, 271). Although a month had elapsed between the drug sale and the arrest, the showup occurred minutes after the undercover officer spontaneously identified the defendant as he was entering a building in the area where the sale had taken place (see, People v King, 221 AD2d 370; People v Bazelias, 220 AD2d 443; People v Martindale, 202 AD2d 158). Bracken, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 326, 699 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hewitt-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack