People v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lewis

57 A.D.2d 632, 393 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11651

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

DecidedApril 25, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 632 (People v. Lewis) 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. Lewis, 57 A.D.2d 632, 393 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 4, 1973, convicting him of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The error, if any, in the trial court’s admission of the undercover agent’s postarrest identification of defendant from an arraignment photograph was rendered harmless by the independent source of origin for the agent’s in-court identification, to wit, his face-to-face confrontation with defendant during the course of the sale (cf. People v Ray, 50 AD2d 575; People v Figueora, 43 AD2d 648). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 4, 1973, convicting him of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The error, if any, in the trial court’s admission of the undercover agent’s postarrest identification of defendant from an arraignment photograph was rendered harmless by the independent source of origin for the agent’s in-court identification, to wit, his face-to-face confrontation with defendant during the course of the sale (cf. People v Ray, 50 AD2d 575; People v Figueora, 43 AD2d 648). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 632, 393 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lewis-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack