From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Crossen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued January 13, 2000

February 24, 2000

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, 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 and physical evidence.

Davis Polk Wardwell, New York, N.Y. (Katharine L. Strobos of counsel), and M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (David A. Crow of counsel), for appellant (one brief filed).

William L. Murphy, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Karen F. McGee and Jillian S. Harrington of counsel), for respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, SONDRA MILLER and HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police had reasonable suspicion to detain him for a showup identification. Although the defendant did not exactly match the description of one of the perpetrators, the differences were minor, and the information possessed by the police was sufficient to justify the brief, minimally-intrusive detention of the defendant until the complainant arrived six minutes later (see, People v. Johnson, 245 A.D.2d 112 ; People v. Rowe, 236 A.D.2d 637, 638 ). Since the showup was held in close temporal and spatial proximity to the robbery, and the defendant was neither surrounded by uniformed police officers nor handcuffed at the time that the complainant viewed him, the showup was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537 ; People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543 ; People v. Morgan, 226 A.D.2d 398, 401 ).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Crossen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Crossen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. ELIJAH CROSSEN, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 503

Citing Cases

People v. Yang

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his motion which was…

People v. Tessono

However, given the defendant's temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, such discrepancies will not…