Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

People v. Victor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 10, 2000

271 A.D.2d 556; 705 N.Y.S.2d 659; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3979

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Quinones v. Miller (2d Cir. 2007)
People v. Nanton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Walters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Hall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Bryan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Kopliku (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Stapleton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Marji (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Victor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered May 27, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a *557weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that a police officer’s testimony regarding the victim’s prior identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery constituted improper bolstering (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, a proper foundation was laid for that testimony. The victim testified at the trial, which was held approximately eight months after the crime occurred, that he was “not sure now” if the defendant had been the person who had robbed him. Additionally, he testified that he identified the perpetrator at the scene of the crime and was certain that the person he identified was the person who robbed him. Thus, the police officer’s testimony did not constitute improper bolstering and was admissible (see, CPL 60.25; see also, People v Quevas, 81 NY2d 41, 42). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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