People v. Tony

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tony

249 A.D.2d 962, 671 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Tony) 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. Tony, 249 A.D.2d 962, 671 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s showup identification was not unduly suggestive (see generally, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). Because the showup identification was conducted within 30 minutes of the robbery and in a fair and nonsuggestive manner, it was appropriate in the interest of prompt identification (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 249) and met the objective “that the police have reasonable assurances that they have arrested or detained the right person” (People v Duuvon, supra, at 545). Defendant has never asserted that his nonarrest detention, including transportation to the crime scene, constituted an unreasonable seizure (cf., People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 242-243). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe [963]*963County, Galloway, J. — Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s showup identification was not unduly suggestive (see generally, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). Because the showup identification was conducted within 30 minutes of the robbery and in a fair and nonsuggestive manner, it was appropriate in the interest of prompt identification (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 249) and met the objective “that the police have reasonable assurances that they have arrested or detained the right person” (People v Duuvon, supra, at 545). Defendant has never asserted that his nonarrest detention, including transportation to the crime scene, constituted an unreasonable seizure (cf., People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 242-243). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe [963]*963County, Galloway, J. — Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 962, 671 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tony-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack