People v. McNeil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McNeil

2017 NY Slip Op 7330, 154 A.D.3d 554, 61 N.Y.S.3d 900

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2017

Docket4750 2887/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7330 (People v. McNeil) 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. McNeil, 2017 NY Slip Op 7330, 154 A.D.3d 554, 61 N.Y.S.3d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J. at suppression hearing; Robert Stolz, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered July 17, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant did not preserve his argument that a photo array was unduly suggestive because he was allegedly the only person in the array not looking at the camera and because his image allegedly appeared “15 to 20%” larger than those of the fillers, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant, like the fillers in the photo array, was looking straight ahead and any difference in the photographs was not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). Moreover, although suggestiveness does not turn solely on this factor (People v Perkins, 28 NY3d 432 [2016]), we note that the alleged deficiencies in the photo array had nothing to do with the description that had been provided by the identifying witness.

Concur— Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Kahn and Kern, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J. at suppression hearing; Robert Stolz, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered July 17, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant did not preserve his argument that a photo array was unduly suggestive because he was allegedly the only person in the array not looking at the camera and because his image allegedly appeared “15 to 20%” larger than those of the fillers, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant, like the fillers in the photo array, was looking straight ahead and any difference in the photographs was not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). Moreover, although suggestiveness does not turn solely on this factor (People v Perkins, 28 NY3d 432 [2016]), we note that the alleged deficiencies in the photo array had nothing to do with the description that had been provided by the identifying witness.

Concur— Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Kahn and Kern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7330, 154 A.D.3d 554, 61 N.Y.S.3d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcneil-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack