People v. Navarro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Navarro

7 A.D.3d 816, 776 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedMay 24, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 816 (People v. Navarro) 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. Navarro, 7 A.D.3d 816, 776 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County [817]*817(O’Dwyer, J.), rendered April 18, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and robbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly found, after a hearing, that the pretrial identification procedures were not unduly suggestive (see People v Bolt, 295 AD2d 357 [2002]; People v Foster, 272 AD2d 410 [2000]; People v Baptiste, 201 AD2d 659 [1994]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Goldstein and Skelos, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County [817]*817(O’Dwyer, J.), rendered April 18, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and robbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly found, after a hearing, that the pretrial identification procedures were not unduly suggestive (see People v Bolt, 295 AD2d 357 [2002]; People v Foster, 272 AD2d 410 [2000]; People v Baptiste, 201 AD2d 659 [1994]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 816, 776 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-navarro-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack