People v. Reeves

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Gruttola

    43 N.Y.2d 116 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 185 times

    None of defendant's complaints speak directly to the issue whether the lineup was suggestive, and the hearing court found no such evidence. Under the circumstances the motion to suppress was properly denied (see People v Blake, 35 N.Y.2d 331, 340; People v Logan, supra; People v Reeves, 49 A.D.2d 537, affd 39 N.Y.2d 1047). We do not reach the question of the impropriety of the supplemental charge since no objection or exception was taken and thus the issue was not preserved for our review (People v Fonseca, 36 N.Y.2d 133, 137).

  2. People v. Reeves

    355 N.E.2d 386 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 3 times

    Mario Merola, District Attorney (Fredric A. Kerstein of counsel), for respondent. Order affirmed on the memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 49 A.D.2d 537). Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE.

  3. People v. Hill

    161 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    The hearing court, while suppressing the showup identification, properly found that complainant's daytime observation of defendant (for approximately four hours) provided a sufficient, independent source to permit her to positively identify defendant in court. The totality of the evidence demonstrates that complainant was not influenced by intervening suggestive police procedures and that she was capable of identifying defendant on the basis of her independent recollection (see, People v. Reeves, 49 A.D.2d 537). Indeed, complainant was able to identify defendant in court at the hearing even though defendant's hair color had changed since the time the showup was conducted. Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.

  4. People v. Ennis

    107 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)   Cited 7 times

    Finally, this court has previously indicated its disapproval of the failure of the police to preserve a photographic array shown to a victim (see People v. Foti, 83 A.D.2d 641, 642). However, even if we assume that the photographic identification by the victim in the instant case was unduly suggestive, as noted previously, the record establishes a sufficient independent basis for both the in-court and lineup identifications (see People v. Pleasant, supra; People v. Williams, 87 A.D.2d 876; People v. Graham, 67 A.D.2d 172; People v. Reeves, 49 A.D.2d 537, affd 39 N.Y.2d 1047). We have considered defendant's other contentions, including his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and his contentions raised on the appeal from the denial of his postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, and find them to be without merit.