People v. Montalvo

269 A.D.2d 328, 704 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2226
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 29, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 328 (People v. Montalvo) 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. Montalvo, 269 A.D.2d 328, 704 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J., at hearing; Edwin Torres, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 24, 1997, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, [329]*329robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There was ample basis in the record for the hearing court’s determination that the single-photo identification of defendant by a hotel manager who had seen defendant at the hotel on various occasions was confirmatory (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 451).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. There was ample evidence of physical injury, including the victim’s testimony that for several days his tongue bled, his ankle and neck hurt and he encountered difficulty turning his head (see, People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630).

Evidence concerning defendant’s possession of two crack pipes and his activities in and around a hotel where there was extensive drug activity was admissible, under the particular and unusual circumstances of the case, to explain why defendant remained at the crime scene rather than fleeing and the fact that defendant had none of the stolen money in his possession shortly after the crime. The evidence went directly to contested factual issues and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect (see, People v Till, 87 NY2d 835). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

State v. Williams
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2015
People v. Whitlock
95 A.D.3d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Stallings
307 A.D.2d 328 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Rodriguez
282 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Silvestre
279 A.D.2d 364 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D.2d 328, 704 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-montalvo-nyappdiv-2000.