People v. Wescott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wescott

186 A.D.2d 364, 588 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11009

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 364 (People v. Wescott) 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. Wescott, 186 A.D.2d 364, 588 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered July 31, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant’s contention that the identification testimony should have been suppressed as unduly suggestive, the showup having taken place in close proximity to the crime scene within minutes of its commission (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523).

Defendant’s contention that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of legitimate advocacy during summation, depriving him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach it. Were we to consider the issue in the interest of justice, we would find it to be without merit (see, People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, cert denied 362 US 912; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered July 31, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant’s contention that the identification testimony should have been suppressed as unduly suggestive, the showup having taken place in close proximity to the crime scene within minutes of its commission (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541; People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523).

Defendant’s contention that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of legitimate advocacy during summation, depriving him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach it. Were we to consider the issue in the interest of justice, we would find it to be without merit (see, People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, cert denied 362 US 912; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 364, 588 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wescott-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack