People v. Hannah
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 651 N.Y.S.2d 314,234 A.D.2d 317 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Preston HANNAH, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1996 |
Page 314
v.
Preston HANNAH, Appellant.
Second Department.
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Kerry Elgarten, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Linda Cantoni, and Peri A. Kadanoff, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered August 17, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, 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.
Review of the record reveals no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination that the lineup was not unduly suggestive and that there was no substantial likelihood of a misidentification (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70; People v. Singleton, 222 A.D.2d 719, 636 N.Y.S.2d 796; People v. Bower, 222 A.D.2d 516, 635 N.Y.S.2d 79; People v. Jacobi, 159 A.D.2d 308, 552 N.Y.S.2d 587). Moreover, the trial court's refusal to sanction the prosecution for the inadvertent destruction of a tape of a "911" call made after the robbery (a "Sprint" report of the call was supplied) was not an improvident exercise of discretion, as there was no showing either of bad faith on the part of the People or of prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Gibbs, 211 A.D.2d 641, 620 N.Y.S.2d 484; People v. Grice, 203 A.D.2d 587, 588, 611 N.Y.S.2d 25; People v. Diggs, 185 A.D.2d 990, 990-991, 587 N.Y.S.2d
Page 315
406; People v. Deas, 174 A.D.2d 751, 752, 571 N.Y.S.2d 778).We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
ROSENBLATT, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Holland
...34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413). Lastly, the lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Hannah, 234 A.D.2d 317, 651 N.Y.S.2d 314; People v. Singleton, 222 A.D.2d 719, 636 N.Y.S.2d 796; People v. Bower, 222 A.D.2d 516, 635 N.Y.S.2d 79). By refusing to coopera......
-
People v. Dobson
...that the lineup was not unduly suggestive and that there was no substantial likelihood of a misidentification (see, People v. Hannah, 234 A.D.2d 317, 651 N.Y.S.2d 314; People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70). ......
-
People v. Seaman
...a "911" telephone call to the police did not warrant a sanction, because the defendant was not prejudiced thereby (see, People v. Hannah, 234 A.D.2d 317, 651 N.Y.S.2d 314 ). The defendant initially subpoenaed the wrong 911 tape (see, People v. Diggs, 185 A.D.2d 990, 587 N.Y.S.2d 406), but w......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...651 N.Y.S.2d 314 234 A.D.2d 316 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose M. GONZALEZ, Appellant. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. Dec. 2, 1996. Larry Sheehan, Scarsdale, for appellant. Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains (Mark C.M. Fang and Richard L......