From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stephenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 1994
202 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 15, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).


There is no merit to defendant's argument that the court improperly denied her motion to suppress identification testimony. The Westpac employees who showed a single photograph of defendant to a witness four hours before that same witness identified defendant in a lineup were not acting as police agents (see, People v. Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282, 286). In addition, defendant's right to counsel was not violated by the prearrest lineup procedures (see, People v. LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670, 672).

Defendant's contention that certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, the People's non-expert witnesses, who testified regarding their familiarity with the peculiar characteristics of defendant's handwriting, were entitled to demonstrate such through the use of both disputed documents and documents known to have been written by defendant (Richardson, Evidence § 375 [Prince 10th ed]). Furthermore, there was a proper foundation for the admission of the computer printout of defendant's account, which was kept in the regular course of business (CPLR 4518).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Stephenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 1994
202 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Stephenson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SUSANA STEPHENSON…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 662

Citing Cases

People v. Griffin

We reject that contention. The People did not contend before the suppression court that the Blockbuster Video…

People v. Collado

Fourth Amendment due process considerations apply only to government officials or their agents, not the…