Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985

People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 22, 1985

110 A.D.2d 844; 488 N.Y.S.2d 87; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48750

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Clark (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Stroud (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)

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

*845Defendant contends that it was error not to suppress the complaining witness’s in-court identification of him since there was no sufficient independent basis for it. The record reveals that there was indeed a sufficient independent basis for admitting the in-court identification testimony. The witness testified that the robbery occurred on a bright sunny afternoon. He observed defendant for four or five minutes during the robbery. The People “establish[ed] by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification [was] based upon observations of the suspect other than the [suppressed] identification” (United States v Wade, 388 US 218, 240), and the in-court identification was therefore properly admitted (see, People v Cobenais, 39 NY2d 968; People v Ganci, 27 NY2d 418, cert denied 402 US 924; People v Ballott, 20 NY2d 600).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.