Opinion
2014-04-15
In re CARLIL M., etc., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for presentment agency.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for presentment agency.
TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2013, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of reckless endangerment in the second degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress a showup identification. The showup, conducted in very close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime, was justified by the interest of making a prompt determination of whether the witness could identify the suspect ( see People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024, 457 N.Y.S.2d 474, 443 N.E.2d 948 [1982] ), and the circumstances were not unduly suggestive ( see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654 [1991] ). “[T]he overall effect of the allegedly suggestive circumstances was not significantly greater than what is inherent in any showup” ( People v. Brujan, 104 A.D.3d 481, 482, 960 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1st Dept.2013],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1014, 971 N.Y.S.2d 496, 994 N.E.2d 392 [2013] ).
The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence supports the conclusion that appellant forced the victim into heavy traffic on the Grand Concourse, repeatedly placing the victim in danger as well as creating the risk of automobile accidents.