People v. McCooey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCooey

156 A.D.2d 927, 548 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16061

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 927 (People v. McCooey) 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. McCooey, 156 A.D.2d 927, 548 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The identification testimony was not the product of an impermissibly suggestive lineup. The County Court’s finding that the lineup was conducted fairly is entitled to great weight and is supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). The court’s finding that defendant’s statements were voluntarily made and not taken in violation of his right to counsel is also supported by the record. The arresting officer testified that defendant never requested counsel. Defendant claimed that he did request counsel but could not identify the officer to whom he made the request. Moreover, there was no corroboration of defendant’s claim (cf., People v Anderson, 69 NY2d 651). The issue of credibility was for the court to resolve and we cannot conclude that it abused its discretion (see, People v Donson, 147 AD2d 815, Iv denied 73 NY2d 1014). We have examined defendant’s remaining claims and find that they do not require reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.— robbery, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The identification testimony was not the product of an impermissibly suggestive lineup. The County Court’s finding that the lineup was conducted fairly is entitled to great weight and is supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). The court’s finding that defendant’s statements were voluntarily made and not taken in violation of his right to counsel is also supported by the record. The arresting officer testified that defendant never requested counsel. Defendant claimed that he did request counsel but could not identify the officer to whom he made the request. Moreover, there was no corroboration of defendant’s claim (cf., People v Anderson, 69 NY2d 651). The issue of credibility was for the court to resolve and we cannot conclude that it abused its discretion (see, People v Donson, 147 AD2d 815, Iv denied 73 NY2d 1014). We have examined defendant’s remaining claims and find that they do not require reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.— robbery, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 927, 548 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccooey-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack