People v. Poerschke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Poerschke

44 A.D.2d 844, 355 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4980

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

DecidedMay 20, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 844 (People v. Poerschke) 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. Poerschke, 44 A.D.2d 844, 355 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered August 4,1971, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Case remanded to the County Court for a determination concerning whether the People’s pretrial photographic identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive, tended to cause a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentifiea[845]*845tion, and tainted the trial identification of defendant by the People’s identification witness. Pending such determination, the appeal will be held in abeyance. It was error to deny defendant’s motion for a pretrial hearing concerning the photographic identification of him by the People’s identification witness (People v. Harrington, 31 N Y 2d 785). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered August 4,1971, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Case remanded to the County Court for a determination concerning whether the People’s pretrial photographic identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive, tended to cause a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentifiea[845]*845tion, and tainted the trial identification of defendant by the People’s identification witness. Pending such determination, the appeal will be held in abeyance. It was error to deny defendant’s motion for a pretrial hearing concerning the photographic identification of him by the People’s identification witness (People v. Harrington, 31 N Y 2d 785). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 844, 355 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-poerschke-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack