Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion to suppress identification testimony. We disagree. The record indicates that the defendant and the complainant were acquainted with one another and, therefore, the issue of suggestiveness was not relevant (see, People v Tas,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.