From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bruce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 1996
224 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 26, 1996

Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.).


Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the record supports the Family Court's determination that the complainant's identification of the appellant as one of the individuals who robbed him was merely confirmatory (see, People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445). While the complainant was obviously confused as to the year or years when he observed the appellant in junior high school, he was sufficiently familiar with the appellant based on the fact that they both attended that same school for at least a period of one year.

Moreover, for the six-month period preceding the robbery, both the complainant and the appellant attended the same high school and the complainant had occasionally seen the appellant in the hallways.

We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Bruce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 1996
224 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Matter of Bruce

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BRUCE C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

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

Date published: Feb 26, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 719

Citing Cases

People v. Tomlin

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The record of the Rodriguez hearing ( see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d…

People v. Hodges

The defendant also contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying suppression of the in-court…