People v. Sabbat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sabbat

135 A.D.2d 846, 523 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52784

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 A.D.2d 846 (People v. Sabbat) 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. Sabbat, 135 A.D.2d 846, 523 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rubin, J.), rendered December 8, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, 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 the complainant’s identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the complainant’s in-court identification should be suppressed as the product of a tainted photographic identification. However, this issue is not relevant in this case because the complainant knew the defendant prior to the robbery. Thus, the defendant’s motion was properly denied (see, People v Johnson, 124 AD2d 748, lv denied 69 NY2d 713). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, 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, Queens County (Rubin, J.), rendered December 8, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, 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 the complainant’s identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the complainant’s in-court identification should be suppressed as the product of a tainted photographic identification. However, this issue is not relevant in this case because the complainant knew the defendant prior to the robbery. Thus, the defendant’s motion was properly denied (see, People v Johnson, 124 AD2d 748, lv denied 69 NY2d 713). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 846, 523 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sabbat-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack