From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 9, 1990
157 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 9, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J.).


In this prosecution for a gunpoint robbery of the complainant by the defendant and two accomplices on the corner of 78th Street and West End Avenue in Manhattan in the early morning hours of April 16, 1985, the court below properly denied defendant's motion for a Wade hearing where, at the time the motion was made, in June of 1985, the defendant did not comply with the CPL 710.60 (3) (b) requirement, since amended, that he make a showing of proper factual allegations in support of the motion (People v Roberto H., 67 A.D.2d 549). Moreover, the court properly determined that the complainant's in-court identification of the defendant was not the product of an impermissibly suggestive showup identification, particularly where the four suspects were viewed by the complainant within approximately 25 minutes of the crime on the subway station platform only two blocks away from where the robbery had occurred, as a result of which, one of the persons viewed was released (People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Acevedo, 102 A.D.2d 336).

Equally devoid of merit is defendant's assertion that the subsequent confirmatory identification by the complainant at the police station house was improper, since the procedure was not conducted in order for the complainant to again identify the defendant, but rather was undertaken because the complainant had expressed reservations concerning whether a third unidentified man was one of her assailants, with the station house identification, in fact, resulting in the prompt release of the third suspect (People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262; People v Vasquez, 141 A.D.2d 880, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 1050; People v Ramos, 136 A.D.2d 574).

Finally, the defendant's remaining contention of improper bolstering is not preserved as a matter of law and we therefore decline to reach it. Were we to consider it, however, in the interest of justice, we would nevertheless affirm, finding it to be without merit.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Asch, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Stone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 9, 1990
157 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Stone

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARREN STONE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 9, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 665

Citing Cases

People v. Wilkins

Under the circumstances, no danger of an irreparable misidentification existed (see, People v Cox, 164 A.D.2d…