Matter of Myasia C.
2013 NY Slip Op 06293 [110 AD3d 411]
October 1, 2013
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 27, 2013


In the Matter of Myasia C., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[*1]Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers ofcounsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel),for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), enteredon or about May 23, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon afact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, wouldconstitute the crimes of menacing in the second degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the fourth degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months,unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court's determination that, notwithstanding an identificationprocedure suppressed by the court, each of the witnesses at issue had an independentsource for his or her identification of appellant (see Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188,199-200 [1972]; People v Williams, 222 AD2d 149 [1st Dept 1996], lvdenied 88 NY2d 1072 [1996]). Each witness had an ample opportunity to seeappellant during the altercation, which occurred over three to four minutes in a well-litbuilding. Furthermore, although the witnesses did not know appellant by name, they hadnot only seen her on numerous prior occasions, but were familiar with her as the result ofearlier instances of threatening behavior.

The court properly denied that portion of appellant's suppression motion that soughta hearing under Dunaway v New York (442 US 200 [1979]) concerning thelegality of the arrest that resulted in her identification by the witnesses. The allegations inappellant's moving papers, when considered in the context of the information provided toappellant, were insufficient to create a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see Peoplev Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 [1993]). Appellant was on notice that the factual predicatefor her arrest was an incident of alleged [*2]menacingand possession of a knife that had occurred several days before the arrest. Appellant didnot specifically deny those allegations or assert any other basis for suppression (seePeople v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 728-729 [2001]). Concur—Friedman, J.P.,Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.