In re Shan M.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2016 |
| Citation | 28 N.Y.S.3d 101,137 A.D.3d 1144 |
| Parties | In the Matter of SHAN M. (Anonymous), appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
137 A.D.3d 1144
28 N.Y.S.3d 101
In the Matter of SHAN M. (Anonymous), appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 23, 2016.
Robert Marinelli, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JJ.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Michael Ambrosio, J.), dated January 7, 2015. The order adjudicated Shan M. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review a fact-finding order of that court dated October 17, 2014, which, after a hearing, found that Shan M. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, menacing in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The presentment agency filed a petition alleging that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would
have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, menacing in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. The appellant moved, inter alia, to suppress testimony regarding a showup identification and any in-court identification flowing therefrom. Following a Wade hearing (see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ), the Family Court denied that branch of the appellant's motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
"While the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Jzamaine E.M.
...and temporal proximity to the incident, was reasonable under the circumstances and not unduly suggestive (see Matter of Shan M., 137 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 28 N.Y.S.3d 101 ; Matter of Kedne L., 45 A.D.3d 843, 844, 846 N.Y.S.2d 605 ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prese......
-
In re Heydi M.
...the admission of such evidence" ( People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537, 664 N.Y.S.2d 243, 686 N.E.2d 1337 ; see Matter of Shan M., 137 A.D.3d 1144, 1144–1145, 28 N.Y.S.3d 101 ; People v. Mack, 135 A.D.3d 962, 24 N.Y.S.3d 381 ). The presentment agency's burden consists of two elements. First,......