| People v Bradley |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00883 [48 AD3d 1145] |
| February 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chester W.Bradley, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Matthew J. Murphy, III, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), renderedFebruary 3, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in thefirst degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofmanslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree (former § 265.03 [2]), defendant contends that a pretrialidentification procedure was unduly suggestive based on the fact that a witness made aconfirmatory identification of defendant using a single photograph. Defendant failed to preservehis contention for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Miller, 43 AD3d 1381 [2007]) and, in any event,defendant's contention is without merit. The witness had known defendant for 10 years and hadgiven his name to the police. Thus, "the witness [was] so familiar with the defendant that there[was] 'little or no risk' that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification" (People vRodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 450 [1992]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, hewas not prejudiced by the pretrial identification procedure used with respect to a second witnessinasmuch as that witness did not testify at trial. Finally, we conclude that the sentence is notunduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.