Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth PIPERSBURG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J., at Wade hearing; Colleen McMahon J., at pleas and sentence), rendered August 6, 1997, convicting defendant of attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 8 years and 1 1/212 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The hearing court properly found that the showup identification of defendant by an undercover officer four months after his last transaction with defendant was confirmatory. Although the police procedure employed was not of the type contemplated by People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 550 N.Y.S.2d 260, 549 N.E.2d 462, there was no risk of misidentification because the officer thoroughly familiarized himself with defendant's appearance and came to know him by his first name (see, People v. Prekuli, 256 A.D.2d 77, 682 N.Y.S.2d 152, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 877, 689 N.Y.S.2d 439, 711 N.E.2d 653; People v. Harrell, 208 A.D.2d 647, 617 N.Y.S.2d 776, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 862, 624 N.Y.S.2d 381, 648 N.E.2d 801). The trained and experienced officer met with defendant and negotiated the purchase of weapons, initially for a period of 20-25 minutes and then four days later for another 30-35 minutes, under conditions that were conducive to observation. The record fails to support defendant's contention that the People's theory at the suppression hearing and the court's ruling were limited to the assertion that the identification was of the precise type approved in Wharton.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 13, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)