From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Livotti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 2002
293 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1999-09920

Submitted March 11, 2002.

April 1, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered September 28, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Steven D. Kommer, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Monique Ferrell of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record of the Rodriguez hearing (see People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445), supports the hearing court's determination that the jewelry store worker who purchased jewelry from the defendant on several occasions was sufficiently familiar with him that her identification of him from a photograph was merely confirmatory (see People v. Rodriguez, supra; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Simmons, 247 A.D.2d 494; People v. Ortega, 237 A.D.2d 108).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Livotti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 2002
293 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Livotti

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. FRANK LIVOTTI, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 1, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 637

Citing Cases

State of N.Y. v. Robles

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the hearing court improperly denied that branch of his…

People v. Lima

This accidental viewing was not the product of any suggestive or improper police conduct ( see People v.…