People v. Igbinosun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Igbinosun

24 A.D.3d 1250, 806 N.Y.S.2d 824

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 1250 (People v. Igbinosun) 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. Igbinosun, 24 A.D.3d 1250, 806 N.Y.S.2d 824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 28, 2004. The judgment convicted [1251]*1251defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (five counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of one count of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and five counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (§ 170.25). County Court properly refused to suppress items seized from defendant. The items were seized during the execution of search warrants that were properly issued upon probable cause (see generally People v Ashley, 2 AD3d 1321, 1322 [2003], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]), based in part on information provided by other law enforcement officers to the officer who appeared before the Magistrate (see People v Laughing, 288 AD2d 885, 886-887 [2001]).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to preclude the People from presenting certain Molineux evidence. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence at issue was properly admitted. “Where[, as here,] identity is in issue and has not been conclusively established, evidence relevant to identification is admissible notwithstanding its incidental proof of guilt of a crime other than those charged” (People v Battles, 83 AD2d 164, 166 [1981]), and the evidence challenged by defendant was relevant to identification. We thus conclude that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to defendant (see id. at 167; see generally People v Burkett, 12 AD3d 1196, 1196-1197 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 28, 2004. The judgment convicted [1251]*1251defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (five counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of one count of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and five counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (§ 170.25). County Court properly refused to suppress items seized from defendant. The items were seized during the execution of search warrants that were properly issued upon probable cause (see generally People v Ashley, 2 AD3d 1321, 1322 [2003], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]), based in part on information provided by other law enforcement officers to the officer who appeared before the Magistrate (see People v Laughing, 288 AD2d 885, 886-887 [2001]).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to preclude the People from presenting certain Molineux evidence. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence at issue was properly admitted. “Where[, as here,] identity is in issue and has not been conclusively established, evidence relevant to identification is admissible notwithstanding its incidental proof of guilt of a crime other than those charged” (People v Battles, 83 AD2d 164, 166 [1981]), and the evidence challenged by defendant was relevant to identification. We thus conclude that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to defendant (see id. at 167; see generally People v Burkett, 12 AD3d 1196, 1196-1197 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 1250, 806 N.Y.S.2d 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-igbinosun-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack