People v. McQuiller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McQuiller

202 A.D.2d 978, 609 N.Y.S.2d 490

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 978 (People v. McQuiller) 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. McQuiller, 202 A.D.2d 978, 609 N.Y.S.2d 490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to preclude identification testimony of the police officer who identified defendant from a group of mug shots. The photo identification procedure took place three days after the officer participated in an undercover operation to purchase narcotics. The notice requirement of CPL 710.30 is not applicable where defendant’s identity is not in issue (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 449; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence sufficiently linked defendant to the premises and the contraband, and established his dominion and control over them (see, People v Torres, 68 NY2d 677). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 7th Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to preclude identification testimony of the police officer who identified defendant from a group of mug shots. The photo identification procedure took place three days after the officer participated in an undercover operation to purchase narcotics. The notice requirement of CPL 710.30 is not applicable where defendant’s identity is not in issue (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 449; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence sufficiently linked defendant to the premises and the contraband, and established his dominion and control over them (see, People v Torres, 68 NY2d 677). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 7th Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 978, 609 N.Y.S.2d 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcquiller-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack