From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Douglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1995
213 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 17, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05), arising out of the theft of a van.

At a suppression hearing, prior to trial, the prosecutor failed to offer any evidence of the complainant's identification of defendant on the day of the crime. Defense counsel requested that any identification testimony by the complainant be suppressed. The prosecutor responded that he did not intend to proffer any evidence of an identification procedure and that the complainant could identify only defendant's clothing. The suppression court denied defendant's motion.

We conclude that the court did not err in denying the motion because the People offered "`resemblance'" testimony by the complainant, not "`identification'" testimony (People v Sanders, 108 A.D.2d 316, 319, affd 66 N.Y.2d 906).


Summaries of

People v. Douglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1995
213 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Douglas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEVIN DOUGLAS…

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

Date published: Mar 17, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 780