People v. Wardell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wardell

254 A.D.2d 58, 678 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10131

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 58 (People v. Wardell) 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. Wardell, 254 A.D.2d 58, 678 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at hearing; Richard Carruthers, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 7, 1996, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years and IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s findings concerning reliability of identification testimony.

Defendant’s motion to suppress statements was properly denied since the record establishes that defendant could not have reasonably believed that she was in custody at the time (People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert denied 400 US 851). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at hearing; Richard Carruthers, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 7, 1996, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years and IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s findings concerning reliability of identification testimony.

Defendant’s motion to suppress statements was properly denied since the record establishes that defendant could not have reasonably believed that she was in custody at the time (People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert denied 400 US 851). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 58, 678 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wardell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack