People v. Martindale, 202 A.D.2d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). · Go Syfert
People v. Martindale, 202 A.D.2d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Quinney (nyappdiv, 2003-05-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Quinney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
The identification of defendant on a public street by one of the victims was not the result of a police-arranged identification procedure (see People v Whisby, 48 NY2d 834, 836 [1979]), and that victim’s subsequent act of pointing defendant out to the police was merely a confirmatory identification (see People v Martindale, 202 AD2d 158, 159 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 912 [1994]; see also People v Rosa, 294 AD2d 159, 159-160 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 732 [2002]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Gilbert
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under the circumstances, the showup was merely confirmatory (see, People v Forestier, 171 AD2d 630 , lv denied 77 NY2d 994 ; see also, People v Martindale, 202 AD2d 158 , lv denied 83 NY2d 912 ), and did not require suppression under the general rule barring precinct showup identifications (see, People v Lorick, 142 AD2d 501 , appeal withdrawn 73 NY2d 785 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Ralph Martindale
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 1, 1994.
202 A.D.2d 158
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J., at trial and sentence; Franklin R. Weissberg, J., at combined Wade/Mapp hearing), rendered August 15, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of from 18 years to life on the first degree robbery conviction and from 15 years to life on the second degree robbery conviction, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding the matter for resentencing and otherwise affirmed.

[*159] Complainant, one week after having been robbed, saw defendant, told co-workers of his identification of defendant, who he espied on the street. One co-worker dialed 911 and the other followed defendant. Shortly after, defendant was arrested and the complainant identified him, while handcuffed in police custody, as the robber.

Defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in not granting his motion to suppress the showup identification, since, inter alia, it took place a week after the crime, and in an impermissibly suggestive manner, is without merit. Since complainant had independently recognized defendant approximately 20 minutes before as the robber, the showup was merely confirmatory (People v Walker, 127 AD2d 868, lv denied 70 NY2d 718; see also, People v Soto, 198 AD2d 38, 39).

However, in view of the fact that Criminal Term misstated the minimum permissible sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.08) which defendant could receive as a persistent violent felony offender, and the People concede that error, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Tom, JJ.