People v. Liu Chin Yang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Liu Chin Yang

283 A.D.2d 659, 725 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5473

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 659 (People v. Liu Chin Yang) 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. Liu Chin Yang, 283 A.D.2d 659, 725 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J., at trial and sentence), rendered October 29, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Rotker, J.), 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 contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that the police had a reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant and the two codefendants, who fit the general description of the three men who robbed the complainant and who were found near the crime scene shortly after the crime occurred (see, People v Ellison, 222 AD2d 693, 694; People v Crossen, 269 AD2d 541). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and H. Miller, 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, Queens County (Robinson, J., at trial and sentence), rendered October 29, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Rotker, J.), 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 contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that the police had a reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant and the two codefendants, who fit the general description of the three men who robbed the complainant and who were found near the crime scene shortly after the crime occurred (see, People v Ellison, 222 AD2d 693, 694; People v Crossen, 269 AD2d 541). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 659, 725 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-liu-chin-yang-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack