People v. Matthews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Matthews

77 A.D.3d 493, 908 N.Y.S.2d 583

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 493 (People v. Matthews) 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. Matthews, 77 A.D.3d 493, 908 N.Y.S.2d 583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 25, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (four counts), [494]*494criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (four counts), petit larceny (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The officer’s testimony and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom were sufficient to satisfy the People’s minimal burden of producing some proof of the circumstances of the identification procedure (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 538 [1997]). In any event, any error in admitting identification testimony by the witness at issue was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 25, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (four counts), [494]*494criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (four counts), petit larceny (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The officer’s testimony and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom were sufficient to satisfy the People’s minimal burden of producing some proof of the circumstances of the identification procedure (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533, 538 [1997]). In any event, any error in admitting identification testimony by the witness at issue was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 493, 908 N.Y.S.2d 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-matthews-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack