From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 1991
178 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 23, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the conduct of a lineup violated his right to counsel is without merit. Absent a specific request to do so, law enforcement authorities ordinarily are not required to notify counsel of an impending investigatory lineup (People v Coates, 74 N.Y.2d 244; People v Hawkins, 55 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 459 U.S. 846; People v Blake, 35 N.Y.2d 331). Although the police were aware that the defendant was represented by counsel on an unrelated matter, no request was made by the defendant or his parents that counsel be notified of the impending lineup (cf., People v LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670). Nor did counsel on the unrelated matter request notification in the event the defendant was placed in a lineup (cf., People v LaClere, supra). Accordingly, we find that the hearing court properly declined to suppress the identification testimony.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 1991
178 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. James

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARK G. JAMES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 23, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

The State of New York v. Johnnie Lane

Defendant also contends for the first time on appeal that the police hadnotice of the appearance of counsel…