People v. White

Opinion

People v White

2026 NY Slip Op 04439

July 15, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Marcus White, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 15, 2026

2022-03258, (Ind. No. 1/21)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Colleen D. Duffy

Carl J. Landicino

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Kelley M. Enderley, Poughkeepsie, NY, for appellant.

Susan Cacace, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Jill Oziemblewski and Raffaelina Gianfrancesco of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Robert A. Neary, J.), rendered April 1, 2022, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (three counts), 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 evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence from a showup procedure. Showup procedures are disfavored since they are suggestive by their very nature. However, they are not presumptively infirm and are permissible where exigent circumstances exist requiring immediate identification (see People v Harris, 244 AD3d 755, 757; People v Garcia, 210 AD3d 906, 907, affd 42 NY3d 1077). Even in the absence of exigent circumstances, a showup procedure is permissible if it is conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crimes and the procedure used was not unduly suggestive (see People v Harris, 244 AD3d at 757; People v Rodriguez, 224 AD3d 783, 784).

Here, the showup procedure was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crimes and the procedure was not unduly suggestive. It was part of an unbroken chain of events and an ongoing investigation (see People v Lowe, 237 AD3d 1225, 1226; People v Bartlett, 137 AD3d 806, 806). The showup procedure was not rendered unduly suggestive because the defendant was handcuffed and in the presence of police officers and police cars (see People v George, 237 AD3d 971, 972; People v Rodriguez, 224 AD3d at 784) or because the area was illuminated by headlights or other lighting (see People v Castro, 149 AD3d 862, 863; People v Huerta, 141 AD3d 602, 603). The fact that the victim was told prior to the showup procedure that two individuals who matched the victim's description of the perpetrators had been detained also did not render the procedure unduly suggestive (see People v Castro, 149 AD3d at 864; People v Ervin, 118 AD3d 910, 911).

The defendant's contention that the sentencing court improperly adjudicated him a [*2]persistent violent felony offender is without merit (see CPL 60.60; People v Shaw, 83 AD3d 1101, 1102; People v Gashi, 285 AD2d 473, 474; People v Rene, 254 AD2d 374, 374). Moreover, the sentence imposed, which was the minimum authorized sentence (see Penal Law § 70.08), was not excessive (see People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519; People v Grist, 98 AD3d 1061, 1063).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court