People v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murphy

117 A.D.2d 824, 499 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53097

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.2d 824 (People v. Murphy) 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. Murphy, 117 A.D.2d 824, 499 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered November 23, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

Both the photographic array viewed by the complainant and the circumstances surrounding the viewing thereof were not impermissibly suggestive. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the in-court identification by the complainant. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered November 23, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

Both the photographic array viewed by the complainant and the circumstances surrounding the viewing thereof were not impermissibly suggestive. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the in-court identification by the complainant. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 824, 499 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1986.