People v. Marcus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marcus

282 A.D.2d 377, 723 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4089

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 377 (People v. Marcus) 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. Marcus, 282 A.D.2d 377, 723 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at suppression hearing; Jeffrey Atlas, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 7, 1998, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, coercion in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, SVz to 7 years, 16 years to life and 12 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Defendant’s detention for the purpose of conducting a showup was based upon reasonable suspicion, which flowed from the totality of the information available to the arresting officer (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234). The record supports each of the hearing court’s findings, including its finding that, at the approach of the police, defendant engaged in conduct that was suspicious because of its distinction from the conduct of the other persons on the street; defendant initially attracted police attention by his very efforts to avoid attracting such attention.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Issues of credibility and identification were properly presented to the jury and there is no reason to disturb its determinations. Concur — Rosenberger, J. R, Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at suppression hearing; Jeffrey Atlas, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 7, 1998, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, coercion in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, SVz to 7 years, 16 years to life and 12 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Defendant’s detention for the purpose of conducting a showup was based upon reasonable suspicion, which flowed from the totality of the information available to the arresting officer (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234). The record supports each of the hearing court’s findings, including its finding that, at the approach of the police, defendant engaged in conduct that was suspicious because of its distinction from the conduct of the other persons on the street; defendant initially attracted police attention by his very efforts to avoid attracting such attention.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Issues of credibility and identification were properly presented to the jury and there is no reason to disturb its determinations. Concur — Rosenberger, J. R, Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 377, 723 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marcus-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack