People v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meyer

255 A.D.2d 272, 682 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12735

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 272 (People v. Meyer) 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. Meyer, 255 A.D.2d 272, 682 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at hearing; Jerome Hornblass, J., at plea and sentence), rendered May 20, 1996, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. A review of the lineup. photograph shows individuals who were similar, although not identical, in age and appearance to defendant. Since there was no substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification (see, People v Stephens, 248 AD2d 214, lv denied 92 NY2d 861), the lineup was not unduly suggestive. Defendant’s claim that he was the only lineup participant meeting the complainant’s description of the robber is unpreserved and unreviewable, because this description is not part of the hearing record and defendant never moved to reopen the hearing.

Furthermore, the sentencing court did not depart from its original promise to consider a recommendation for early release to the parole board if defendant showed sufficient rehabilitation. We take judicial notice of defendant’s post-conviction application under CPL article 440 where it appears that the court furnished such a recommendation, which the board considered and rejected. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach 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 (Carol Berkman, J., at hearing; Jerome Hornblass, J., at plea and sentence), rendered May 20, 1996, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. A review of the lineup. photograph shows individuals who were similar, although not identical, in age and appearance to defendant. Since there was no substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification (see, People v Stephens, 248 AD2d 214, lv denied 92 NY2d 861), the lineup was not unduly suggestive. Defendant’s claim that he was the only lineup participant meeting the complainant’s description of the robber is unpreserved and unreviewable, because this description is not part of the hearing record and defendant never moved to reopen the hearing.

Furthermore, the sentencing court did not depart from its original promise to consider a recommendation for early release to the parole board if defendant showed sufficient rehabilitation. We take judicial notice of defendant’s post-conviction application under CPL article 440 where it appears that the court furnished such a recommendation, which the board considered and rejected. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 272, 682 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meyer-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack