People v. Manzione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manzione

210 A.D.2d 352, 620 N.Y.S.2d 275

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 352 (People v. Manzione) 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. Manzione, 210 A.D.2d 352, 620 N.Y.S.2d 275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered April 22, 1993, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the showup procedure utilized by the police came within the confirmatory identification exception to the notice and hearing requirements of the Crimirial Procedure Law for suggestive pretrial identification procedures (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445; People v Wiggins, 189 AD2d 908). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Hart, 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, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered April 22, 1993, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the showup procedure utilized by the police came within the confirmatory identification exception to the notice and hearing requirements of the Crimirial Procedure Law for suggestive pretrial identification procedures (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445; People v Wiggins, 189 AD2d 908). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 352, 620 N.Y.S.2d 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manzione-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack