Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982

People v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 14, 1982

88 A.D.2d 749; 451 N.Y.S.2d 473; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16995

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Shippens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. Neal (New York County Courts 1996)
People v. Broome (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Vega (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Lofton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Banks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. Roth (New York County Courts 1985)
People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Bostick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Barnhill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Morin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court acted properly in summarily denying the motions to suppress identification testimony (People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 49; People v Roberto H., 67 AD2d 549). Ordinarily, there is no constitutional right to an identification hearing outside the presence of the jury (Watkins v Sowders, 449 US 341) and by statute a hearing is required only where the papers contain “sworn allegations of fact” supporting the grounds of the motion. The allegations may be based upon personal knowledge, or upon information and belief if the sources of information and grounds of the belief are stated (CPL 710.60, subd 1). The affidavit in support of the motion to suppress the identification testimony of the witness Deresh contained no facts but only conclusory allegations of *750suggestive procedures. The affidavit referring to the witness Driscoll contained allegations based upon information and belief, but failed to provide the sources of information and grounds of the belief. None of the other points raised by appellant require reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Davis, J. — burglary, third degree and other charges.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.