From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Berry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 8, 1997
242 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

September 8, 1997

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While riding on the subway, the complainant was robbed at knifepoint by the defendant and his two cohorts. At trial, the conductor identified the defendant as one of the three teenage boys she saw escaping between the cars after the robbery. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecution's failure to serve the pretrial notice required by CPL 710.30 (1) (b) does not warrant a reversal in this case.

Since the defendant moved to suppress the identification testimony and received a full hearing on the fairness of the identification procedure, any alleged deficiency in the pretrial notice provided by the People was irrelevant ( see, People v Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903; CPL 710.30).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Berry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 8, 1997
242 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Berry

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LAMAR BERRY, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 8, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 671

Citing Cases

People v. Sigue

Here, not only was the defendant afforded open file discovery, but he also received a full hearing and a…

People v. Johnson

30; People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903). Since the defendant moved to suppress the statements and, after a…