People v. Warring

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Warring

270 A.D.2d 508, 706 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 508 (People v. Warring) 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. Warring, 270 A.D.2d 508, 706 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered May 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, 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 defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the showup identification procedure employed here was unnecessary under the circumstances of this case (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Douglas, 254 AD2d 367). In any event, the showup procedure was proper (see, Matter of David B., 244 AD2d 405; People v Rodney, 237 AD2d 541; People v Yearwood, 197 AD2d 554).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered May 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, 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 defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the showup identification procedure employed here was unnecessary under the circumstances of this case (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Douglas, 254 AD2d 367). In any event, the showup procedure was proper (see, Matter of David B., 244 AD2d 405; People v Rodney, 237 AD2d 541; People v Yearwood, 197 AD2d 554).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 508, 706 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-warring-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack