From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 1998
247 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenweig, J.).


Ordered that the judgement is affirmed.

The defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 to vacate the judgment was properly denied. It is well settled that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v. Shilitano, 218 N.Y. 161, 170). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant made a statement which positively identified him as the individual who relieved the complainant of his jewelry at gunpoint, the complainant's recantation would probably not change the result if a new trial were granted, and the court properly denied the defendant's motion without a hearing ( see, People v. Turner, 215 A.D.2d 703; People v. Rodriguez, 201 A.D.2d 683; People v. Donald, 107 A.D.2d 818).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Thompson, J.P., Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 1998
247 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Lawrence

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY LAWRENCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 23, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 242

Citing Cases

People v. Myers

Finally, it is well-settled that recantation evidence is unreliable. See People v. Lawrence, 247 AD2d 635 (2d…

People v. Cross

Moreover, recantation evidence is treated by the courts with a high degree of skepticism. '"It is well…