People v. Stays

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stays

265 A.D.2d 585, 697 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10743

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 585 (People v. Stays) 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. Stays, 265 A.D.2d 585, 697 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered September 12, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon 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 that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was arrested without probable cause. The hearing record demonstrates that the arrest was predicated upon the photographic identifications of the defendant by two eyewitnesses (see, People v Nixon, 240 AD2d 764; People v Hill, 212 AD2d 632). Moreover, the detectives had received information that someone named “Sundula” was involved in the shooting, and were aware that the defendant used that unusual nickname (see, People v Burton, 194 AD2d 683; People v Mitchell, 166 AD2d 676).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, 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 (Rotker, J.), rendered September 12, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon 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 that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was arrested without probable cause. The hearing record demonstrates that the arrest was predicated upon the photographic identifications of the defendant by two eyewitnesses (see, People v Nixon, 240 AD2d 764; People v Hill, 212 AD2d 632). Moreover, the detectives had received information that someone named “Sundula” was involved in the shooting, and were aware that the defendant used that unusual nickname (see, People v Burton, 194 AD2d 683; People v Mitchell, 166 AD2d 676).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 585, 697 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stays-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack