People v. Grassia, 141 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Grassia, 141 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …the garage in the present case was structurally part of a house which was used for overnight lodging . . . , it must be considered as part of a dwelling ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
19 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Jackson (nyappdiv, 2015-03-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
That contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), but it is without merit in any event (see People v Green, 141 AD2d 760, 761 [1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 786 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
That contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), but it is without merit in any event (see People v Green, 141 AD2d 760, 761 [1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 786 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ryan
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1996 · confidence medium
(See, People v Green, supra, at 761; People v Ivory, 99 AD2d 154 .) Accordingly, the court finds that a sufficient basis exists to sustain the Grand Jury’s indictment of the defendant on the charge of burglary in the second degree and, thus, the defendant’s motion to dismiss or reduce the indictment is hereby denied.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Lee Grassia
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 1988.
141 A.D.2d 760
1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7099
Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), rendered April 6, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, 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.

Despite the unavailability of the photograph of his lineup, we find, contrary to the defendant’s contention, that there is an adequate record upon which to review his challenge to the "fairness” of the lineup procedure. Based upon the testimony of the detective who arranged the lineup and the testimony of the complaining witness, we conclude, as did the hearing court, that the lineup was in no way suggestive. In any event, we agree with the hearing court that the record contains sufficient facts to establish that the complainant possessed an independent basis upon which to predicate an in-court identification of the defendant. (See, People v Hall, 81 AD2d 644.) Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.