From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ridley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 7, 2003
307 A.D.2d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2000-07448

Submitted June 6, 2003.

July 7, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 26, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Jill Gross-Marks of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony is granted, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

The police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the defendant for the purpose of a showup identification ( see People v. Riddick, 269 A.D.2d 471). Thus, the hearing court should have granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony ( see People v. Hargroves, 296 A.D.2d 581; People v. Gethers, 86 N.Y.2d 159, 162; People v. Dubinsky, 289 A.D.2d 415, 416; People v. Yiu C. Choy, 173 A.D.2d 883, 884).

Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the fact that at the trial the complainant was unable to identify either the defendant or any of the codefendants as his assailants, we are constrained to dismiss the indictment ( see People v. Rossi, 80 N.Y.2d 952, 954; People v. Hargroves, 296 A.D.2d 581; People v. Hargroves, 296 A.D.2d 582; People v. Strickland, 296 A.D.2d 584; People v. Wright, 296 A.D.2d 585; People v. Hargroves, 303 A.D.2d 766).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ridley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 7, 2003
307 A.D.2d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Ridley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. DELROY RIDLEY, appellant

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

Date published: Jul 7, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
761 N.Y.S.2d 871

Citing Cases

People v. Polhill

In this respect, the defendant's appearance did not match the description broadcast on the radio, and the…

People v. Moses

Similarly, the vague and equivocal hearsay testimony of the arresting officer concerning a statement made by…