People v. Pizarro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pizarro

277 A.D.2d 257, 715 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 257 (People v. Pizarro) 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. Pizarro, 277 A.D.2d 257, 715 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), rendered February 22, 1996, convicting him of robbery 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 defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was properly stopped after the police observed him drive through a red light. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police were justified in detaining and arresting him based on the information available prior to his arrest (see, People v Chase, 85 NY2d 493; People v Colucci, 268 AD2d 531; People v Legette, 244 AD2d 505).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective [258]*258assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708). O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, 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 (Martin, J.), rendered February 22, 1996, convicting him of robbery 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 defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was properly stopped after the police observed him drive through a red light. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police were justified in detaining and arresting him based on the information available prior to his arrest (see, People v Chase, 85 NY2d 493; People v Colucci, 268 AD2d 531; People v Legette, 244 AD2d 505).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective [258]*258assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708). O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 257, 715 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pizarro-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack