From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Acosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1992
181 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 24, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.).


The police detective's lineup identification of defendant was not tainted by her previous identification of a photograph of defendant taped on a blackboard in the room where she was assigned to work, since the photograph had not been presented to her for the purpose of identifying defendant as the perpetrator of a crime (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552). Rather, the detective's identification of defendant's photograph was a spontaneous recognition of a man she had observed participating in an undercover drug purchase only days before. Such chance viewings are not the product of any suggestive or improper police conduct (see, People v Casanova, 124 A.D.2d 813).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Acosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1992
181 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Acosta

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MIGUEL ACOSTA…

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

Date published: Mar 24, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 324

Citing Cases

People v. Womack

But it is by no means an "arranged" identification procedure. It is therefore plainly outside the scope of…

People v. Lima

The complainant spontaneously identified the defendant when he inadvertently discovered a photograph of the…