People v. Planes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Planes

225 A.D.2d 708, 640 N.Y.2d 134, 640 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2602

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 708 (People v. Planes) 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. Planes, 225 A.D.2d 708, 640 N.Y.2d 134, 640 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

While showups are generally disfavored (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523), the People elicited hearing testimony establishing that the eyewitness knew the defendant. The defendant did not challenge the witness’s familiarity with him, but only argued that the identification was suggestive (cf., People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445). Therefore, he failed to preserve for appellate review his present contention that the witness was not sufficiently familiar with him (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gomez, 67 NY2d 843). In any event, since the uncontradicted evidence demonstrated that the showup identification was merely confirmatory in nature, any question regarding suggestiveness was rendered irrelevant (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543; People v Creech, 183 AD2d 777).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

While showups are generally disfavored (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523), the People elicited hearing testimony establishing that the eyewitness knew the defendant. The defendant did not challenge the witness’s familiarity with him, but only argued that the identification was suggestive (cf., People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445). Therefore, he failed to preserve for appellate review his present contention that the witness was not sufficiently familiar with him (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gomez, 67 NY2d 843). In any event, since the uncontradicted evidence demonstrated that the showup identification was merely confirmatory in nature, any question regarding suggestiveness was rendered irrelevant (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543; People v Creech, 183 AD2d 777).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 708, 640 N.Y.2d 134, 640 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-planes-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack