Court Opinion

ID: 5956510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 06:40:30.033129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:58.352057
License: Public Domain

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly found that the photo array was not impermissibly suggestive (cf., People v Hall, 81 AD2d 644; People v Tindal, 69 AD2d 58). In any event, there was an independent basis for the victim’s in-court identification (see, People v Perez, 74 NY2d 637). Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal are unpreserved and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.