People v. Clark

• Citation: 85 N.Y.2d 886,626 N.Y.S.2d 59,649 N.E.2d 1203
• Parties: , 649 N.E.2d 1203 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roberto CLARK, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 28 March 1995
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 59

626 N.Y.S.2d 59

85 N.Y.2d 886, 649 N.E.2d 1203

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roberto CLARK, Appellant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 28, 1995.

[85 N.Y.2d 887] Paul Skip Laisure, New York City, E. Joshua Rosenkranz and Howard A. Pincus, for appellant in the first above-entitled action.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. of New York County, New York City (Christine R. Cardi and Sylvia Wertheimer, of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.

Bertan & LaRaus, White Plains (David K. Bertan, of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled action.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. of New York County, New York City (Susan Gliner and Mark Dwyer, of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed.

In each of these appeals, defendants challenge the factual finding that their respective pretrial showup identifications were not unduly suggestive. In People v. Clark, 201 A.D.2d 311, 607 N.Y.S.2d 34 the record supports the determination that the identifications were not the product of police suggestion but rather spontaneous. One of the two robbery victims observed the perpetrator in a neighborhood market, asked the manager for his address, and then contacted the police with this information. Subsequently, the victims were escorted by the police to the address, where they immediately identified the defendant as their assailant when he opened the apartment door. We agree with the courts below that this procedure was not unduly suggestive and that complainants' identifications were spontaneous (see, People v. Newball, 76 N.Y.2d 587, 591, 561 N.Y.S.2d 898, 563 N.E.2d 269; People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654; cf., People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218, 623 N.Y.S.2d 813, 647 N.E.2d 1321).

In People v. Williams, 202 A.D.2d 347, 609 N.Y.S.2d 596, the record reveals that the showup was the result of happenstance. An individual contacted the victim, who had been raped and sodomized two weeks earlier in the lobby of her apartment building, claiming to have her passport and identification cards. These items were stolen from her apartment approximately 12 days after the rape. Based on a description provided by a neighbor whom this individual approached in an attempt to locate the victim and the caller's admission that he had been looking for her at the apartment building, the victim believed this person was her attacker.

After conferring with the police, she arranged to meet this individual outside of a subway station to recover her property. The complainant was transported to...