People v. Croom, 2013–10134

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 97 N.Y.S.3d 262,171 A.D.3d 781
• Docket Number: 2014–03683,Ind. No. 2496/11,2013–10134
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sharif CROOM, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 03 April 2019

171 A.D.3d 781
97 N.Y.S.3d 262

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Sharif CROOM, Appellant.

2013–10134
2014–03683
Ind. No. 2496/11

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted - December 4, 2018
April 3, 2019

97 N.Y.S.3d 263

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Danielle O'Boyle of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

171 A.D.3d 782

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph A. Zayas, J.), rendered October 17, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (3 counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (12 counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court rendered February 26, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (5 counts) and robbery in the second degree (5 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal from the judgment rendered October 17, 2013, brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Arthur J. Cooperman, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence and statements he made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of those branches of the defendant's omnnibus motion which were to suppress the showup and lineup identifications, and the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials. The police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which the defendant was riding based on the description of the vehicle given by the complainant, the proximity of the vehicle to the area where the robbery had occurred, and the fact that the stop was made about two minutes after the police received a 911 emergency telephone call reporting the robbery, late at night in a residential area (see People v. Ceruti, 133 A.D.3d 610, 20 N.Y.S.3d 378 ; People v. Argyris, 99 A.D.3d 808, 952 N.Y.S.2d 254, affd 24 N.Y.3d 1138, 3 N.Y.S.3d 711, 27 N.E.3d 425 ; People v. Young, 68 A.D.3d 1761, 891 N.Y.S.2d 577 ; People v. Devorce, 293 A.D.2d 550, 742 N.Y.S.2d 63 ). Since the stop of the vehicle was lawful, there was no basis to suppress evidence of the showup, the lineup identifications, or the defendant's statements on the ground that they were tainted by an illegal vehicle stop.

Furthermore, neither the showup nor the lineup procedures were unduly suggestive. The showup procedure was not rendered unduly suggestive by the fact that the defendant was handcuffed and in the presence of plainclothes police officers, or that the police shined the lights of police vehicles on him (see People v. Bartlett, 137 A.D.3d 806, 27 N.Y.S.3d 163 ;

97 N.Y.S.3d 264

People v. Jerry, 126 A.D.3d 1001, 4 N.Y.S.3d 317 ). The height and weight disparities between the participants in the lineup were diminished by the fact that they were seated behind a piece of cloth which hid their bodies from the neck down (see People v. Pinckney, 220 A.D.2d 539, 632 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; People v. Jackson, 151 A.D.2d 694, 542 N.Y.S.2d 749 ).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair

...