People v. Neverett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Neverett

182 A.D.2d 1092, 582 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1092 (People v. Neverett) 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. Neverett, 182 A.D.2d 1092, 582 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly determined that, although the victim’s identification of defendant at a station-house showup was unreliable (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523), the victim had an independent basis to support his in-court identification at trial (see, People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600; People v Turner [appeal No. 1], 154 AD2d 885). The proof was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of attempted first degree robbery based on defendant’s use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument (see, Penal Law §§110.00,160.15 [3]). The victim testified that defendant threatened him and struck him in the face with what appeared to be a gun (see, People v McGowan, 160 AD2d 896; People v Smith, 142 AD2d 619, Iv denied 73 NY2d 860). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Finnerty, J. — Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present —Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly determined that, although the victim’s identification of defendant at a station-house showup was unreliable (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523), the victim had an independent basis to support his in-court identification at trial (see, People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600; People v Turner [appeal No. 1], 154 AD2d 885). The proof was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of attempted first degree robbery based on defendant’s use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument (see, Penal Law §§110.00,160.15 [3]). The victim testified that defendant threatened him and struck him in the face with what appeared to be a gun (see, People v McGowan, 160 AD2d 896; People v Smith, 142 AD2d 619, Iv denied 73 NY2d 860). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Finnerty, J. — Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present —Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1092, 582 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-neverett-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack