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. Angel ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered August 4, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 to 18 years, 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's motion to preclude in-court and lineup identification testimony was properly denied. The court imposed the proper remedy for the prosecutor's failure to provide timely CPL 710.30 notice with respect to a photo identification, to wit, preclusion of that evidence (People v. Bell, 214 A.D.2d 353, 625 N.Y.S.2d 893, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 840, 634 N.Y.S.2d 449, 658 N.E.2d 227), leaving unaffected the lineup identification, which had been properly noticed and which was a valid basis for the in-court identification (People v. Tatum, 205 A.D.2d 397, 613 N.Y.S.2d 391, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 1008, 616 N.Y.S.2d 489, 640 N.E.2d 157).
We conclude, as we did with respect to a similar issue raised by the codefendant concerning another identification procedure in this case (see, People v. Jones, 223 A.D.2d 375, 637 N.Y.S.2d 32, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 849, 644 N.Y.S.2d 695, 667 N.E.2d 345), that any error in permitting a detective to describe a witness's demeanor at a lineup was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit.
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: January 14, 1997
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)