People v. Priester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Priester

249 A.D.2d 247, 671 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4786

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

DecidedApril 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 247 (People v. Priester) 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. Priester, 249 A.D.2d 247, 671 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered September 28, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the lineup identification. Defendant’s contention that the lineup was unduly suggestive is not supported by the record, which establishes that all of the participants were wearing fairly similar clothes and sufficiently resembled one another (see, People v Gega, 188 AD2d 305, lv denied 81 NY2d 886). The statement by the police officer conducting the lineup that the complainant was “going to have to pick out the person that robbed him” did not contaminate the identification (see, People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered September 28, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the lineup identification. Defendant’s contention that the lineup was unduly suggestive is not supported by the record, which establishes that all of the participants were wearing fairly similar clothes and sufficiently resembled one another (see, People v Gega, 188 AD2d 305, lv denied 81 NY2d 886). The statement by the police officer conducting the lineup that the complainant was “going to have to pick out the person that robbed him” did not contaminate the identification (see, People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 247, 671 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-priester-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack