People v. Lourensz

• Decision Date: 17 January 1995
• Citation: 621 N.Y.S.2d 324,211 A.D.2d 492
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hendricks LOURENSZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 324

621 N.Y.S.2d 324

211 A.D.2d 492

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hendricks LOURENSZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Jan. 17, 1995.

M.C. Farrington, for respondent.

D. Kanski, for defendant-appellant.

Before ELLERIN, J.P., and KUPFERMAN, ASCH and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered April 14, 1993, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the stop and temporary investigative detention for purposes of a prompt on-the-scene confirmatory identification was proper (People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861). The perpetrators were located near the scene of the crime, and the lapse of some forty-five minutes did not vitiate the validity of the showup (see, People v. Maybell, 198 A.D.2d 108, 603 N.Y.S.2d 161, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 927, 610 N.Y.S.2d 179, 632 N.E.2d 489; People v. Horn, 197 A.D.2d 420, 602 N.Y.S.2d 390, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 897, 610 N.Y.S.2d 163, 632 N.E.2d 473). We reject defendant's remaining contentions in this regard. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving due deference to the jury's finding on credibility under the standards set forth in People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672, we find that defendant was convicted by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence.

Defendant failed to preserve properly his bolstering claim and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

We cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion (see generally, People v. Schwartzman 24 N.Y.2d 241, 244, 299 N.Y.S.2d 817, 247 N.E.2d 642, cert. denied 396 U.S. 846, 90 S.Ct. 103, 24 L.Ed.2d 96) in limiting the re-direct examination (People v. Bethune, 105 A.D.2d 262, 269, 484 N.Y.S.2d 577) especially as to matters having only a marginal connection to credibility, and no relevance to the issue of guilt (People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 262-263, 367 N.Y.S.2d 236, 326 N.E.2d 804, cert. denied 423 U.S. 861, 96 S.Ct. 116, 46 L.Ed.2d 88; cf., People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 248, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975).

Defendant failed to preserve any of his...