People v. Lloyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lloyd

43 A.D.3d 726, 843 N.Y.S.2d 5

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 726 (People v. Lloyd) 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. Lloyd, 43 A.D.3d 726, 843 N.Y.S.2d 5 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered February 2, 2006, as amended March 1, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the hearing court’s independent source findings with respect to each of the witnesses at issue (see Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 [1972]; People v Williams, 222 AD2d 149 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1072 [1996]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Each witness was acquainted with defendant and had ample opportunity to observe him, not only during the robberies, but on various other occasions. The witnesses’ inability to accurately state defendant’s height and weight does not warrant a different conclusion. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered February 2, 2006, as amended March 1, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the hearing court’s independent source findings with respect to each of the witnesses at issue (see Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188, 199-200 [1972]; People v Williams, 222 AD2d 149 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1072 [1996]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Each witness was acquainted with defendant and had ample opportunity to observe him, not only during the robberies, but on various other occasions. The witnesses’ inability to accurately state defendant’s height and weight does not warrant a different conclusion. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 726, 843 N.Y.S.2d 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lloyd-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack