People v. Murray
124 A.D.2d 603, 507 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61917
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Murray. Read the opinion of the Court — 122 A.D.2d 81 →
Opinion
We find unpersuasive the defendant’s arguments concerning the unreliability of his identification by an eyewitness and the complainant, both of whom knew him and saw him on a daily basis and concededly correctly identified his accomplice. Regarding the conflicting exculpatory testimony of the defendant’s accomplice, "resolution of credibility [was] properly for the trier of fact” (see, People v La Borde, 76 AD2d 869, 870; People v Sutton, 108 AD2d 942; lv denied 65 NY2d 930). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Murray, 124 A.D.2d 603, 507 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).
124 A.D.2d 603 (People v. Murray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. La Borde
76 A.D.2d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
People v. Sutton
108 A.D.2d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)