People v. Sweeper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sweeper

165 A.D.2d 691, 562 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11069

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 165 A.D.2d 691 (People v. Sweeper) 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. Sweeper, 165 A.D.2d 691, 562 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (John A. K. Bradley, J.), rendered on September 8, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Complainant was robbed by several persons in front of the Prince George Hotel. A week later, the complainant returned with the police and identified the defendant and three others. The defendants were brought back to the precinct where the complainant again identified them. The complainant’s in-court identification of defendant did not require an independent source because of the station house showup. "It was not an improper police-arranged showup at the precinct serving as an initial identification, the unreliability of which is well established”, but a confirmatory identification. (People v Nixon, 162 AD2d 225.)

Defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, meritless or constitute harmless error.

Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (John A. K. Bradley, J.), rendered on September 8, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Complainant was robbed by several persons in front of the Prince George Hotel. A week later, the complainant returned with the police and identified the defendant and three others. The defendants were brought back to the precinct where the complainant again identified them. The complainant’s in-court identification of defendant did not require an independent source because of the station house showup. "It was not an improper police-arranged showup at the precinct serving as an initial identification, the unreliability of which is well established”, but a confirmatory identification. (People v Nixon, 162 AD2d 225.)

Defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, meritless or constitute harmless error.

Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 691, 562 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sweeper-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack