Summary
In People v. Brown (293 A.D.2d 686 [2nd Dept 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 695), independent source was found after the complainant testified to having a clear and unobstructed view of the perpetrator, under well-lit conditions, for about fifteen seconds.
Summary of this case from People v. NewmanOpinion
2000-11706
Submitted February 28, 2002.
April 22, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered December 19, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Florence M. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The identification testimony of the complaining witness was proper. Although the hearing court found the photographic and lineup procedures to be defective, it correctly found that there was an independent source for the in-court identification of the defendant. The witness had a clear and unobstructed view of the defendant, under well-lit conditions, for a 15-second period during the commission of the crime (see People v. Androvett, 135 A.D.2d 640; People v. Washington, 111 A.D.2d 418).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this court.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.