Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 22, 2002

293 A.D.2d 686; 741 N.Y.S.2d 791; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3968

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Brown v. Tracy (District Court, E.D. New York 2004)
People v. Rochard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
People v. Goondall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
People v. Jefferson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Small (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Small (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Hatcher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Colon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Dell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Paris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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 (Knipel, J.), rendered December 19, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), 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.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The identification testimony of the complaining witness was proper. Although the hearing court found the photographic and lineup procedures to be defective, it correctly found that there was an independent source for the in-court identification of the defendant. The witness had a clear and unobstructed view of the defendant, under well-lit conditions, for a 15-second period during the commission of the crime (see People v Androvett, 135 AD2d 640; People v Washington, 111 AD2d 418).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur. •

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