From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pauley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1986
125 A.D.2d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

December 1, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's argument that the pretrial lineup identification of him by the eyewitness to the crime was tainted because his photograph appeared in an article on the incident published in the New York Post prior to the lineup is without merit. The eyewitness did not see the newspaper article and photograph, and there is nothing in the present record to indicate that the photograph published in the newspaper was supplied by law enforcement officials (see, People v. Marshall, 91 A.D.2d 643). The defendant's contention that remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation denied him a fair trial is also without merit (see, People v. Mayrant, 109 A.D.2d 850). We have considered the defendant's other contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Pauley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1986
125 A.D.2d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Pauley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY PAULEY, Also…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1986

Citations

125 A.D.2d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Morales

Accordingly, we reject the defendant's contention that the in-court identifications violated his right to due…

People v. Fuller

The victim's prior inability to identify defendant in a photo array goes to the weight to be given her…