People v. Irick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Irick

243 A.D.2d 652, 663 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10191

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 652 (People v. Irick) 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. Irick, 243 A.D.2d 652, 663 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered July 6, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Lipp, J.), 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 refused to suppress the identification testimony. The police officers who conducted the lineup made several calls to the defendant’s attorney before proceeding with the lineup. Under these circumstances, the defendant was not denied the right to counsel when the police proceeded in the attorney’s absence (see, People v McRae, 195 AD2d 180, 187-188; People v Riley, 158 AD2d 559).

[653]*653The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Luciano, 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, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered July 6, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Lipp, J.), 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 refused to suppress the identification testimony. The police officers who conducted the lineup made several calls to the defendant’s attorney before proceeding with the lineup. Under these circumstances, the defendant was not denied the right to counsel when the police proceeded in the attorney’s absence (see, People v McRae, 195 AD2d 180, 187-188; People v Riley, 158 AD2d 559).

[653]*653The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 652, 663 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-irick-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack