People v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lopez

47 A.D.3d 431, 854 N.Y.S.2d 644

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 431 (People v. Lopez) 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. Lopez, 47 A.D.3d 431, 854 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J), rendered February 24, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record supports the court’s findings that the photo array and lineup were not unduly suggestive. In each instance, defendant and the other participants were reasonably similar in appearance, and any difference was not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J), rendered February 24, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record supports the court’s findings that the photo array and lineup were not unduly suggestive. In each instance, defendant and the other participants were reasonably similar in appearance, and any difference was not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 431, 854 N.Y.S.2d 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lopez-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack