People v. Parkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parkinson

243 A.D.2d 586, 665 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9755

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 586 (People v. Parkinson) 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. Parkinson, 243 A.D.2d 586, 665 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), rendered May 9, 1994, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and impos[587]*587ing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his arrest was supported by probable cause and those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence were properly denied (see, People v Pate, 182 AD2d 717).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci 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, Queens County (Corrado, J.), rendered May 9, 1994, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and impos[587]*587ing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his arrest was supported by probable cause and those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence were properly denied (see, People v Pate, 182 AD2d 717).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 586, 665 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parkinson-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack