People v. Longshore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Longshore

249 A.D.2d 565, 671 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559

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

DecidedApril 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 565 (People v. Longshore) 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. Longshore, 249 A.D.2d 565, 671 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered October 11, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Flug, 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 correctly concluded that the lineup from which he was identified was not impermissibly suggestive. There is no requirement that the participants in a lineup be nearly identical in appearance (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 [566]*566US 833). Despite certain age and weight disparities, the fillers were sufficiently similar to the defendant in appearance that he was not singled out for identification (see, People v Lopez, 209 AD2d 442; People v Baptiste, 201 AD2d 659). The height discrepancies were minimized by the fact that the participants were seated when viewed by the complainant (see, People v Garcia, 215 AD2d 584; People v Robert, 184 AD2d 597). Consequently, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the lineup and in-court identification by the complainant was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, 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 (Clabby, J.), rendered October 11, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Flug, 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 correctly concluded that the lineup from which he was identified was not impermissibly suggestive. There is no requirement that the participants in a lineup be nearly identical in appearance (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 [566]*566US 833). Despite certain age and weight disparities, the fillers were sufficiently similar to the defendant in appearance that he was not singled out for identification (see, People v Lopez, 209 AD2d 442; People v Baptiste, 201 AD2d 659). The height discrepancies were minimized by the fact that the participants were seated when viewed by the complainant (see, People v Garcia, 215 AD2d 584; People v Robert, 184 AD2d 597). Consequently, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the lineup and in-court identification by the complainant was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 565, 671 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-longshore-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack