People v. Lluvera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lluvera

277 A.D.2d 251, 715 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11289

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 251 (People v. Lluvera) 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. Lluvera, 277 A.D.2d 251, 715 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered November 25, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kron, 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 the identification testimony in the instant case (see, People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 420-421).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Smith, 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 (Rosengarten, J.), rendered November 25, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kron, 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 the identification testimony in the instant case (see, People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 420-421).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 251, 715 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lluvera-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack