AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. FRANK LIVOTTI, appellant.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record of the Rodriguez hearing (see People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445), supports the hearing court's determination that the jewelry store worker who purchased jewelry from the defendant on several occasions was sufficiently familiar with him that her identification of him from a photograph was merely confirmatory (see People v. Rodriguez, supra; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Simmons, 247 A.D.2d 494; People v. Ortega, 237 A.D.2d 108).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. LIVOTTI
(Apr 1, 2002)