Citation Numbers: 243 A.D.2d 736, 665 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10688
Filed Date: 10/27/1997
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Appeal by the defen
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination of the detectives regarding certain physical characteristics of the lineup participants (see, Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, cert denied 498 US 833). The characteristics at issue were readily discernible from a photograph of the lineup that was before the court (see, e.g., People v Mattocks, 133 AD2d 89). Because the lineup procedure was not otherwise unduly suggestive, the court did not err in denying suppression of identification testimony (see, People v Chipp, supra). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Plorio, JJ., concur.