From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dickerson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 24, 1980
50 N.Y.2d 937 (N.Y. 1980)

Opinion

Argued May 28, 1980

Decided June 24, 1980

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, JOHN J. REILLY, J.

Judith Preble and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.

Mario Merola, District Attorney (David H. Fromm and Steven R. Kartagener of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

That court affirmed defendant's conviction agreeing with the suppression court that the complainant's pretrial corporeal identification of defendant was not impermissibly suggestive and that there were independent bases for defendant's in-court identification by both the complainant and the police officer. Each of these affirmed determinations is beyond the scope of our review unless it were to be concluded that it was erroneous as a matter of law. There was, however, no error of law in any of these determinations.

We have examined defendant's associated contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Dickerson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 24, 1980
50 N.Y.2d 937 (N.Y. 1980)
Case details for

People v. Dickerson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID DICKERSON…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 24, 1980

Citations

50 N.Y.2d 937 (N.Y. 1980)
431 N.Y.S.2d 453
409 N.E.2d 927

Citing Cases

Dickerson v. Fogg

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the majority's decision in a memorandum opinion. People v. Dickerson,…

People v. Young

The trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that the witness had an independent source for her…