People v. Lavell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lavell

127 A.D.2d 611, 511 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43082

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 611 (People v. Lavell) 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. Lavell, 127 A.D.2d 611, 511 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered July 30, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the hearing court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony inasmuch as the defendant failed to establish that the photographic array was unduly suggestive (see, People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367; People v Jackson, 108 AD2d 757). Furthermore, the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt through the eyewitness testimony of the complaining witness. We also note that certain handcuffs were properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439, 453-454). Finally, we have considered the defendant’s remaining claims and find that they are without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Sullivan, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered July 30, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the hearing court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony inasmuch as the defendant failed to establish that the photographic array was unduly suggestive (see, People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367; People v Jackson, 108 AD2d 757). Furthermore, the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt through the eyewitness testimony of the complaining witness. We also note that certain handcuffs were properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439, 453-454). Finally, we have considered the defendant’s remaining claims and find that they are without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 611, 511 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lavell-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack