Court Opinion

ID: 9919920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 22:59:49.570506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:58.921953
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.), rendered June 16, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that the People did not fail to turn over the Rosario material in question (see, People v Johnson, 155 AD2d 339).
Prior to executing an order to remove the defendant from jail and place the defendant in a lineup, the People were under no obligation to first attempt to contact the assigned attorney who had represented the defendant in an unrelated criminal matter (cf., People v Coates, 74 NY2d 244, 249). In any event, we note that the defendant was represented at the lineup by an attorney who had been appointed for him by the Queens County Supreme Court. Furthermore, the record does not support the defendant’s contention that the lineup was unduly suggestive (cf., People v Bady, 202 AD2d 440).
The defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.