People v. Kennerly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kennerly

117 A.D.2d 624, 498 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52898

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 624 (People v. Kennerly) 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. Kennerly, 117 A.D.2d 624, 498 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered October 4, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Under the circumstances of this case, where defendant, who exactly matched the description of the burglar, was apprehended a very short distance from the crime scene only [625]*625minutes after the crime, the police acted properly in arranging a prompt on-the-scene showup (see, e.g., People v Brnja, 70 AD2d 17, affd 50 NY2d 366; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Soto, 87 AD2d 618). Nor can it be said that the showup in the instant case was unduly suggestive, where the hearing court determined that defendant was brought to the scene in an unmarked car, was not handcuffed, and was immediately identified without any prompting or other improper comments from the officers to the complainant, and these findings are amply supported by the evidence.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered October 4, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Under the circumstances of this case, where defendant, who exactly matched the description of the burglar, was apprehended a very short distance from the crime scene only [625]*625minutes after the crime, the police acted properly in arranging a prompt on-the-scene showup (see, e.g., People v Brnja, 70 AD2d 17, affd 50 NY2d 366; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023; People v Soto, 87 AD2d 618). Nor can it be said that the showup in the instant case was unduly suggestive, where the hearing court determined that defendant was brought to the scene in an unmarked car, was not handcuffed, and was immediately identified without any prompting or other improper comments from the officers to the complainant, and these findings are amply supported by the evidence.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 624, 498 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kennerly-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack