People v. Worsech

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Worsech

186 A.D.2d 1004, 590 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11546

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1004 (People v. Worsech) 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. Worsech, 186 A.D.2d 1004, 590 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant’s showup identification was close in time and space to the scene of the crime, the hearing court properly concluded that defendant’s identification was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Nettles, 154 AD2d 925; People v Jones, 149 AD2d 970, lv denied 74 NY2d 742). Defendant’s remaining contention that complainant’s identification testimony should have been suppressed because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him was waived by defendant’s failure to make that suppression motion (see, CPL 710.70 [3]; People v O’Neil, 152 AD2d 966, lv denied 74 NY2d 816; People v Martinez, 105 AD2d 873, 874). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.— Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Law-ton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant’s showup identification was close in time and space to the scene of the crime, the hearing court properly concluded that defendant’s identification was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Nettles, 154 AD2d 925; People v Jones, 149 AD2d 970, lv denied 74 NY2d 742). Defendant’s remaining contention that complainant’s identification testimony should have been suppressed because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him was waived by defendant’s failure to make that suppression motion (see, CPL 710.70 [3]; People v O’Neil, 152 AD2d 966, lv denied 74 NY2d 816; People v Martinez, 105 AD2d 873, 874). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.— Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Law-ton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1004, 590 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-worsech-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack