People v. Sivels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sivels

134 A.D.2d 381, 520 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50571

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 381 (People v. Sivels) 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. Sivels, 134 A.D.2d 381, 520 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered August 2, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Finnegan, J.), after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress statements and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[382]*382The hearing court correctly found that the first identification of the defendant, which occurred shortly after the crime, was not police initiated since the complainant pointed out the defendant and the codefendant to the police without any prompting. The second identification occurred after the police pursued the fleeing defendant and brought him back to where the complainant and other perpetrators were located, and was merely the complainant’s confirmation that the defendant was the same person whom he had previously identified as the assailant (see, People v Soto, 87 AD2d 618; see also, People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, cert denied 396 US 1020, rearg dismissed 27 NY2d 733).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, 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, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered August 2, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Finnegan, J.), after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress statements and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[382]*382The hearing court correctly found that the first identification of the defendant, which occurred shortly after the crime, was not police initiated since the complainant pointed out the defendant and the codefendant to the police without any prompting. The second identification occurred after the police pursued the fleeing defendant and brought him back to where the complainant and other perpetrators were located, and was merely the complainant’s confirmation that the defendant was the same person whom he had previously identified as the assailant (see, People v Soto, 87 AD2d 618; see also, People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, cert denied 396 US 1020, rearg dismissed 27 NY2d 733).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 381, 520 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sivels-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack