People v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Richards

264 A.D.2d 787, 696 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 787 (People v. Richards) 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. Richards, 264 A.D.2d 787, 696 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered March 27, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third 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’s contention that the prosecution witness did not have an independent basis to identify him in court is without merit. The witness had three face-to-face conversations with the defendant in a well-lit area during the course of a drug transaction, and accurately described the defendant in detail prior to viewing him in the police station. Thus, the witness had an independent basis to identify the defendant in court (see, People v Quinitchett, 210 AD2d 438; People v Hyatt, 162 AD2d 713, 714).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpre-served for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Joy and H. Miller, 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, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered March 27, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third 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’s contention that the prosecution witness did not have an independent basis to identify him in court is without merit. The witness had three face-to-face conversations with the defendant in a well-lit area during the course of a drug transaction, and accurately described the defendant in detail prior to viewing him in the police station. Thus, the witness had an independent basis to identify the defendant in court (see, People v Quinitchett, 210 AD2d 438; People v Hyatt, 162 AD2d 713, 714).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpre-served for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Joy and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 787, 696 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-richards-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack