| People v Dixson |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01135 [147 AD3d 484] |
| February 10, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kimada Dixson, Appellant. |
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Rosemary Herbert ofcounsel), for appellant.
Kimada Dixson, appellant pro se.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Matthew B. White of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (James M. Kindler, J.), rendered June 3, 2013,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as asecond felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the victim's identification ofdefendant in a six-person lineup. The taint of any prior unduly suggestive identificationprocedures, conducted more than two months earlier, was dissipated by the passage of time (see People v Perez, 128 AD3d465, 465 [1st Dept 2015]; People vMathis, 94 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 975 [2012]). Thelineup fillers did not differ so much from defendant's appearance or the victim's description ofthe perpetrator as to single out defendant unfairly (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335[1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; compare People v Perkins, 28 NY3d 432 [2016] [lineup fillerslacked defendant's very noticeable distinctive hairstyle]).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is nobasis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of the victim'stestimony that he was certain of the accuracy of his identification of defendant in the lineup butwas unable to make an in-court identification almost two years after the incident because hismemory had faded. The dangerous instrument element was established by the victim's testimonythat defendant placed a large commercial fish hook to his abdomen and threatened to kill him(see People v Chrisp, 194 AD2d 465 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 752[1993]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered the arguments raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and findthem unavailing. Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels andWebber, JJ.