From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Longshore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1998
249 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 27, 1998

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

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court correctly concluded that the lineup from which he was identified was not impermissibly suggestive. There is no requirement that the participants in a lineup be nearly identical in appearance (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). Despite certain age and weight disparities, the fillers were sufficiently similar to the defendant in appearance that he was not singled out for identification (see, People v. Lopez, 209 A.D.2d 442; People v. Baptiste, 201 A.D.2d 659). The height discrepancies were minimized by the fact that the participants were seated when viewed by the complainant (see, People v. Garcia, 215 A.D.2d 584; People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597). Consequently, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the lineup and in-court identification by the complainant was properly denied.

O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Longshore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1998
249 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Longshore

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DWAYNE LONGSHORE…

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

Date published: Apr 27, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 332

Citing Cases

Roldan v. Artuz

"); People v. Cook, 254 A.D.2d 92, 92, 681 N.Y.S.2d 486, 486 (1st Dep't 1998) ("differences in height and…

People v. Winter

To evaluate the fairness of the lineup, some of the factors to be considered by the Court are the "physical…