People v. Gonzalez, 389 N.E.2d 834 (N.Y. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Gonzalez, 389 N.E.2d 834 (N.Y. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Bulgin, 29 Misc. 3d 286 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
46 N.Y.2d at 1012 identification at accidental showup was spontaneous and untainted by any “untoward police misconduct1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • People v. Bulgin, 29 Misc. 3d 286 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).published
    (identification at accidental showup was spontaneous and untainted by any “untoward police misconduct)
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Carlos Gonzalez
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 27, 1979.
Published opinion
389 N.E.2d 834
1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1924
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, William H. Roth, Robert S. Katz and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., Mario Merola, District Attorney (Daniel Taub and Billie Manning of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

All three preconditions to the application of CPL 60.25 (subd 2) having been met, the testimony of Officer Moroney confirming the pretrial identification of appellant by the witness Grant was properly admissible at trial (see People v Nival, 33 NY2d 391). Appellant apparently concedes both that the identifying witness "observed the person claimed by the people to be the defendant” at the crime scene (CPL 60.25, subd 1, par [a], cl [i]) and that he was "unable at [trial] to state, on the basis of present recollection, whether or not [appellant was] the person in question” (CPL 60.25, subd 1, par [a], cl [iii]): The record contains evidence that the third condition also was met. In the presence of Officer Moroney at the station house, Grant "observed * * * a person whom he recognized” as the subject of his on-the-scene observation (CPL 60.25, subd 1, par [a], cl [ii]).

As to the constitutionality of the procedures followed by the police in connection with the so-called showup at which Grant identified appellant, our review of the record reveals ample support for the suppression court’s finding that the circumstances were not "unnecessarily suggestive”. As affirmed by the Appellate Division, which found that the showup was in fact "accidental” and that the identification thereat was spontaneous and untainted by any "untoward police conduct”, the determination is beyond our power of review (People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116, 122).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.