People v. Villanova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Villanova

270 A.D.2d 23, 703 N.Y.S.2d 479, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2206

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 23 (People v. Villanova) 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. Villanova, 270 A.D.2d 23, 703 N.Y.S.2d 479, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered July 1, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. After permitting defendant to call several police officers at the hearing, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application to call other officers or the complainant (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 338-340, cert denied 498 US 833). Defendant’s contention that the potential for suggestiveness in the identification procedures warranted calling these witnesses was purely speculative (see, People v Morrison, 244 AD2d 168, 169, lv denied 91 NY2d 895; see also, People v With[24]*24erspoon, 66 NY2d 973, 974). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered July 1, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. After permitting defendant to call several police officers at the hearing, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application to call other officers or the complainant (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 338-340, cert denied 498 US 833). Defendant’s contention that the potential for suggestiveness in the identification procedures warranted calling these witnesses was purely speculative (see, People v Morrison, 244 AD2d 168, 169, lv denied 91 NY2d 895; see also, People v With[24]*24erspoon, 66 NY2d 973, 974). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 23, 703 N.Y.S.2d 479, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-villanova-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack