New York Court of Appeals, 1982

People v. Love

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 11, 1982

57 N.Y.2d 1023; 443 N.E.2d 948; 457 N.Y.S.2d 474; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3857

Cases that cite this one

271 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

People v. Brisco (N.Y. 2003)
People v. Howard (New York Supreme Court 1985)
People v. Alvarez (New York Supreme Court 1992)
People v. Duuvon (N.Y. 1991)
People v. Delgado (New York Supreme Court 1984)
People v. Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Coleman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Dixon (N.Y. 1995)
People v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Sanchez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Nettles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Milza (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Malcolm (New York Supreme Court 1988)
People v. Coe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Bradley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. King (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. Perry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Vincenty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Reyes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. McLean (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Jackson (New York Supreme Court 2015)
Matter of Nathaniel W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Carlil M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

To the extent that defendant seeks to argue that the showup was not necessary because Officer Phillips had himself identified defendant, the point has not been preserved for our review. Moreover, though the better practice when feasible is not to conduct a showup before a group of witnesses (People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 249), procedures that are less than ideal may, as Adams held, be tolerable in the interest of prompt identification. This is particularly so in a case such as the present, in view of the proximity of the *1025apprehension of defendant in time and space (five minutes and one block, cf. People v Brnja, 50 NY2d 366) to the scene of the crime. Nor was there any allegation that the conduct of the police was in any way impermissibly suggestive.

Defendant’s second claim of error, bolstering contrary to People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471), was not preserved, the objection stated having been no more than the one word “objection” (People v West, 56 NY2d 662).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in memorandum.

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