From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Worsech

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1004 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 7, 1992

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Marks, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant's showup identification was close in time and space to the scene of the crime, the hearing court properly concluded that defendant's identification was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Nettles, 154 A.D.2d 925; People v Jones, 149 A.D.2d 970, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 742). Defendant's remaining contention that complainant's identification testimony should have been suppressed because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him was waived by defendant's failure to make that suppression motion (see, CPL 710.70; People v O'Neil, 152 A.D.2d 966, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 816; People v Martinez, 105 A.D.2d 873, 874).


Summaries of

People v. Worsech

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1004 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Worsech

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL J. WORSECH…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 1004 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Hunt

Defendant's assertion that he was arrested without probable cause has not been preserved for review (see, CPL…