People v. Starkes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Starkes

283 A.D.2d 943, 723 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4556

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

DecidedMay 2, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 943 (People v. Starkes) 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. Starkes, 283 A.D.2d 943, 723 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). He contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to preclude the identification testimony of an undercover police officer who purchased cocaine from him dur[944]*944ing a “buy-bust” operation because the People’s CPL 710.30 notice was insufficient. We disagree. The showup identification by the officer within five minutes after the cocaine buy was “merely confirmatory and, therefore, not subject to CPL 710.30 requirements” (People v Benitez, 221 AD2d 965, 966, lv denied 87 NY2d 970; see also, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 922-923). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). He contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to preclude the identification testimony of an undercover police officer who purchased cocaine from him dur[944]*944ing a “buy-bust” operation because the People’s CPL 710.30 notice was insufficient. We disagree. The showup identification by the officer within five minutes after the cocaine buy was “merely confirmatory and, therefore, not subject to CPL 710.30 requirements” (People v Benitez, 221 AD2d 965, 966, lv denied 87 NY2d 970; see also, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 922-923). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 943, 723 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-starkes-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack