From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perez

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 9, 1989
539 N.E.2d 1104 (N.Y. 1989)

Opinion

Argued March 28, 1989

Decided May 9, 1989

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Eugene Nardelli, J.

James W. Kennedy for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Maryjane C. Shimsky and Norman Barclay of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant had no right to file a supplemental pro se brief in the Appellate Division and under the circumstances presented we find no abuse of discretion by the court in denying him permission to do so (see, People v White, 73 N.Y.2d 468 [decided herewith]). In affirming, however, we note that the police identification of defendant from a mug shot several weeks later, based upon observation of him at the time of the crime, could not be considered a proper confirmatory identification (see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523). Inasmuch as the Appellate Division found on sufficient evidence that the officer also had an independent basis for his identification, the error does not require reversal.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Perez

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 9, 1989
539 N.E.2d 1104 (N.Y. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDISON PEREZ, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 9, 1989

Citations

539 N.E.2d 1104 (N.Y. 1989)
539 N.E.2d 1104
541 N.Y.S.2d 976

Citing Cases

People v. Wharton

, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552), too often resulting in misidentifications and thus warranting…

People v. Roberts

Thus, there is evidence in the record to support the determination of the courts below that the officer's…