People v. Zaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zaro

179 A.D.2d 384, 578 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 121

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 9, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The hearing court properly refused to suppress testimony of a prompt showup identification by a token booth clerk who had witnessed the robbery and gave the police a detailed and accurate description of defendant. Prompt showup identifications by witnesses following a defendant’s arrest at or near the crime scene are desirable to guard against mistakes and the showup procedure employed herein certainly was not unduly suggestive (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). In any event, there was, as the court found, an independent source for the witness’s in-court identification (see, People v McMahon, 167 AD2d 137, 138). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

The hearing court properly refused to suppress testimony of a prompt showup identification by a token booth clerk who had witnessed the robbery and gave the police a detailed and accurate description of defendant. Prompt showup identifications by witnesses following a defendant’s arrest at or near the crime scene are desirable to guard against mistakes and the showup procedure employed herein certainly was not unduly suggestive (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541). In any event, there was, as the court found, an independent source for the witness’s in-court identification (see, People v McMahon, 167 AD2d 137, 138). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

People v. Zaro, 179 A.D.2d 384, 578 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

179 A.D.2d 384 (People v. Zaro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related