People v. Urena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Urena

221 A.D.2d 390, 633 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11755

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 390 (People v. Urena) 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. Urena, 221 A.D.2d 390, 633 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered February 16, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance 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.

The County Court did not err in denying the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the undercover officer’s identification of a photograph of the defendant. The record indicates that the identification was made by a trained police officer who had viewed the defendant for several minutes during the January 11, 1993, hand-to-hand transaction. In addition, the officer had seen the defendant on the street on prior occasions. Therefore, the officer’s identification of a photograph of the defendant shortly after concluding the transaction was merely confirmatory in nature (see, People v Montgomery, 213 AD2d 563, Iv granted 86 NY2d 798; People v Harrison, 210 AD2d 348; People v Lane, 185 AD2d 282; People v Almonte, 181 AD2d 736; People v Johnson, 173 AD2d 734).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, 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 County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered February 16, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance 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.

The County Court did not err in denying the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the undercover officer’s identification of a photograph of the defendant. The record indicates that the identification was made by a trained police officer who had viewed the defendant for several minutes during the January 11, 1993, hand-to-hand transaction. In addition, the officer had seen the defendant on the street on prior occasions. Therefore, the officer’s identification of a photograph of the defendant shortly after concluding the transaction was merely confirmatory in nature (see, People v Montgomery, 213 AD2d 563, Iv granted 86 NY2d 798; People v Harrison, 210 AD2d 348; People v Lane, 185 AD2d 282; People v Almonte, 181 AD2d 736; People v Johnson, 173 AD2d 734).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 390, 633 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-urena-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack