People v. Jhagroo

• Decision Date: 19 August 2020
• Docket Number: 2017–07083,Ind. No. 1306/16
• Citation: 127 N.Y.S.3d 294 (Mem),186 A.D.3d 741
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ryan JHAGROO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 741
127 N.Y.S.3d 294 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Ryan JHAGROO, Appellant.

2017–07083
Ind. No. 1306/16

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

Argued—January 6, 2020
August 19, 2020

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Schoepp–Wong of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Russell Shapiro of counsel), for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

186 A.D.3d 741

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael Aloise, J.), rendered June 13, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Ronald D. Hollie, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the conviction of assault in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

In May of 2016, the complainant was waiting for a bus in Jamaica, Queens, when the defendant approached him and pushed him to the ground. While the complainant was on the ground, the defendant slapped him several times in the face, and took his cellular phone and his wallet, which contained about $100 in cash. Using a cellular phone application, police officers were able to track the complainant's phone to a location about eight blocks away. The officers went to that location, and located the cellular phone on the ground next to the defendant. The defendant matched a description of the perpetrator

186 A.D.3d 742

which had been given to the officers by the complainant. The complainant thereafter identified the defendant in a showup procedure. The defendant was apprehended and identified approximately 25 minutes after the crime was reported.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The People, at a hearing pursuant to United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, met their burden of establishing that the showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Williams, 143 A.D.3d 847, 848, 39 N.Y.S.3d 482 ; People v. Huerta, 141 A.D.3d 602, 603, 35 N.Y.S.3d 433 ). The showup was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the robbery (see People v. Williams, 143 A.D.3d at 848, 39 N.Y.S.3d 482 ; People v. Johnson, 104 A.D.3d 705, 706, 960 N.Y.S.2d 206 ), and prior to the showup, the complainant had given police officers a detailed description of the perpetrator's appearance (see People v. Williams, 143 A.D.3d at 848, 39 N.Y.S.3d 482 )....