People v. Sweeper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sweeper

259 A.D.2d 285, 687 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2262

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 285 (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, 259 A.D.2d 285, 687 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J., at hearing; Micki Scherer, J., at pretrial motions, plea and sentence), entered September 15, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (4 counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (4 counts), robbery in the third degree and burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to eight terms of 9 years and two terms of 2 to 4 years, all to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Defendant’s claim that the lack of an interpreter at the identification procedures cast doubt on the nature of the complainants’ accusations against him is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find this claim to be irrelevant to the issue of suggestiveness.

The record, which reveals that defendant was granted all the [286]*286various hearings he requested as well as a change of counsel, contradicts defendant’s claim that the motion court summarily denied these applications. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J., at hearing; Micki Scherer, J., at pretrial motions, plea and sentence), entered September 15, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (4 counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (4 counts), robbery in the third degree and burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to eight terms of 9 years and two terms of 2 to 4 years, all to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Defendant’s claim that the lack of an interpreter at the identification procedures cast doubt on the nature of the complainants’ accusations against him is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find this claim to be irrelevant to the issue of suggestiveness.

The record, which reveals that defendant was granted all the [286]*286various hearings he requested as well as a change of counsel, contradicts defendant’s claim that the motion court summarily denied these applications. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 285, 687 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sweeper-nyappdiv-1999.