From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tislon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 11, 2001
279 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued December 12, 2000

January 11, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered January 8, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Greenberg, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Rachel Altstein of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Elizabeth L. Wilson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). The defendant failed to request curative instructions or move for a mistrial once the court sustained his objections and/or issued curative instructions (see, People v. Reeder, 221 A.D.2d 666; also, People v. Woodberry, 239 A.D.2d 448; People v. Bell, 152 A.D.2d 700). In any event, the contention is without merit.

The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that the showup identification by the complaining witness was improper is without merit. The showup identification in this case took place within 45 minutes of the crime and only about 100 yards away from the apartment building where the burglary occurred (see, People v. Andrews, 255 A.D.2d 328; People v. Rodney, 237 A.D.2d 541; People v. Yearwood, 197 A.D.2d 554; People v. Green, 125 A.D.2d 697, affd 70 N.Y.2d 860).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Tislon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 11, 2001
279 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Tislon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY TISLON, APPELLANT. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Jan 11, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
719 N.Y.S.2d 590

Citing Cases

People v. Rock

In 1998, petitioner was convicted of, among other things, burglary in the second degree and was sentenced as…

People v. Parris

The police properly detained the defendant for the purpose of a showup procedure ( see People v Gonzalez, 61…