Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Azor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 6, 2014Published

1ConcurrenceRichter, J.

I write separately because I would affirm the court’s finding that the identification procedures were not suggestive. I agree with the majority’s recitation of the facts surrounding defendant’s alleged assault on the officers, and therefore need not repeat those facts here. However, the record does not establish what happened after defendant was handcuffed. Nor does it establish that an identification was made by either officer at that time. Officer Anthony testified that he immediately left the area after defendant was subdued, and Officer Feluso gave no testimony *449about what occurred…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. ChippNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. People v. GarnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API