People v. Walden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Walden

37 A.D.3d 1067, 829 N.Y.S.2d 339

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 1067 (People v. Walden) 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. Walden, 37 A.D.3d 1067, 829 N.Y.S.2d 339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), rendered May 12, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05), defendant contends that the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive because the victim was shown two photo arrays within a three-day period. We reject that contention (see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). The victim identified defendant in the first photo array, which contained black-and-white photographs, and her identification of defendant in the second photo array, which contained color photographs but otherwise was identical to the first photo array, was merely confirmatory of the first identification (see People v Floyd, 135 AD2d 650 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 1006 [1988]; see generally People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738, 740-741 [1984]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Gorski, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), rendered May 12, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05), defendant contends that the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive because the victim was shown two photo arrays within a three-day period. We reject that contention (see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). The victim identified defendant in the first photo array, which contained black-and-white photographs, and her identification of defendant in the second photo array, which contained color photographs but otherwise was identical to the first photo array, was merely confirmatory of the first identification (see People v Floyd, 135 AD2d 650 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 1006 [1988]; see generally People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738, 740-741 [1984]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Gorski, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 1067, 829 N.Y.S.2d 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-walden-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack