People v. Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scott

180 A.D.2d 834

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 834 (People v. Scott) 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. Scott, 180 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered May 25, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony, physical evidence, and statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed (see, People v Hikel, 180 AD2d 820 [decided herewith]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered May 25, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony, physical evidence, and statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed (see, People v Hikel, 180 AD2d 820 [decided herewith]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scott-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack