People v. McCray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCray

298 A.D.2d 203, 748 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9748

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 203 (People v. McCray) 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. McCray, 298 A.D.2d 203, 748 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J., at suppression hearing; Frederic Berman, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 8, 1996, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of identification, [204]*204including the weight to be given to inconsistencies, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Since the victim spoke poor English, many of the purported inconsistencies in his testimony and his prior statements were the product of a language barrier.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. While the initial showup at a subway station occurred two days after the robbery, it occurred shortly after the victim had independently recognized his assailant without police involvement. Therefore, the showup was merely confirmatory, as was the subsequent showup at the precinct (see People v Gilbert, 295 AD2d 275; People v Summers, 250 AD2d 412, lv denied 92 NY2d 931). The use of a showup to obtain a prompt and reliable identification was justified, not by the showup’s proximity to the arrest (compare, People v Johnson, 81 NY2d 828), but by its proximity to the victim’s independent recognition of defendant.

Defendant’s remaining contention was previously rejected by this Court upon defendant’s motion for a reconstruction proceeding and there is no basis upon which to depart from that determination (see e.g. People v Alvarado, 269 AD2d 104, lv denied 94 NY2d 916). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J., at suppression hearing; Frederic Berman, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 8, 1996, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of identification, [204]*204including the weight to be given to inconsistencies, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Since the victim spoke poor English, many of the purported inconsistencies in his testimony and his prior statements were the product of a language barrier.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. While the initial showup at a subway station occurred two days after the robbery, it occurred shortly after the victim had independently recognized his assailant without police involvement. Therefore, the showup was merely confirmatory, as was the subsequent showup at the precinct (see People v Gilbert, 295 AD2d 275; People v Summers, 250 AD2d 412, lv denied 92 NY2d 931). The use of a showup to obtain a prompt and reliable identification was justified, not by the showup’s proximity to the arrest (compare, People v Johnson, 81 NY2d 828), but by its proximity to the victim’s independent recognition of defendant.

Defendant’s remaining contention was previously rejected by this Court upon defendant’s motion for a reconstruction proceeding and there is no basis upon which to depart from that determination (see e.g. People v Alvarado, 269 AD2d 104, lv denied 94 NY2d 916). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 203, 748 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccray-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack