People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ortiz

246 A.D.2d 559, 666 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 559 (People v. Ortiz) 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. Ortiz, 246 A.D.2d 559, 666 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), rendered August 1, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the [560]*560defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly denied his motion to suppress identification testimony inasmuch as the evidence elicited at the Wade hearing established that the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336, cert denied 498 US 833). To the extent the defendant relies on the complainant’s trial testimony in making his argument, we note that trial testimony may not be considered in evaluating a suppression ruling on appeal (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 532; People v Diaz, 194 AD2d 688, 689).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Altman, 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, Kings County (Silverman, J.), rendered August 1, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the [560]*560defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly denied his motion to suppress identification testimony inasmuch as the evidence elicited at the Wade hearing established that the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336, cert denied 498 US 833). To the extent the defendant relies on the complainant’s trial testimony in making his argument, we note that trial testimony may not be considered in evaluating a suppression ruling on appeal (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 532; People v Diaz, 194 AD2d 688, 689).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 559, 666 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortiz-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack