From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2000-10961

Argued September 8, 2003.

October 14, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered November 13, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, 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.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Sarah J. Berger of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Traci R. Wilkerson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the lineup was not unduly suggestive. The fillers were sufficiently similar to the defendant in appearance such that there was no substantial likelihood that he would be singled out for identification ( see People v. Perkins, 307 A.D.2d 998; People v. Poey, 260 A.D.2d 411). The fact that the defendant was the only one in the lineup wearing a white shirt was not so unduly suggestive of his identity as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification because there is no evidence that the defendant's clothing figured prominently in the complainant's description of the perpetrator ( see People v. Saunders, 306 A.D.2d 502; People v. Tinnen, 238 A.D.2d 615).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

SMITH, J.P., TOWNES, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Torres

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ELISHA TORRES, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 650

Citing Cases

State v. Jordan

The hearing court properly declined to suppress lineup identification evidence ( see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d…

People v. Torres

April 23, 2004. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 309 AD2d 823 (Queens). Application in criminal case for leave to…