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. Lois MONTALVO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J., at hearing; Edwin Torres, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 24, 1997, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. There was ample basis in the record for the hearing court's determination that the single-photo identification of defendant by a hotel manager who had seen defendant at the hotel on various occasions was confirmatory (see, People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 451, 583 N.Y.S.2d 814, 593 N.E.2d 268).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. There was ample evidence of physical injury, including the victim's testimony that for several days his tongue bled, his ankle and neck hurt and he encountered difficulty turning his head (see, People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 612 N.Y.S.2d 350, 634 N.E.2d 951).
Evidence concerning defendant's possession of two crack pipes and his activities in and around a hotel where there was extensive drug activity was admissible, under the particular and unusual circumstances of the case, to explain why defendant remained at the crime scene rather than fleeing and the fact that defendant had none of the stolen money in his possession shortly after the crime. The evidence went directly to contested factual issues and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect (see, People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 637 N.Y.S.2d 681, 661 N.E.2d 153).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 29, 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)