From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Strickland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 2002
296 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-07898

Submitted June 6, 2002

July 30, 2002.

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.

Dale A. Black-Pennington, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant.

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

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, 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 (see People v. Brandon Hargroves, 296 A.D.2d 582 [decided herewith]).

FLORIO, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Strickland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 2002
296 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Strickland

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. LAWRENCE STRICKLAND, appellant

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

Date published: Jul 30, 2002

Citations

296 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
745 N.Y.S.2d 718

Citing Cases

People v. Ridley

Thus, the hearing court should have granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to…

People v. Allen

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is ORDERED that…