People v. Martin - Criminal Conviction Affirmed

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 12th, 2026

Detected March 13th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the conviction of Michael Martin for attempted assault in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court found no violation of speedy trial rights and deemed any evidentiary errors harmless.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the conviction of Michael Martin, who was sentenced to three concurrent terms of fourteen years. The court addressed several points of appeal, including speedy trial rights under CPL 30.30, the admissibility of an officer's identification of the defendant from surveillance footage, and the necessity of CPL 710.30 identification notice. The court found that 172 days were chargeable to the People, thus not violating speedy trial rights, and that any error in admitting the officer's testimony was harmless due to overwhelming evidence.

This decision affirms the trial court's judgment and sentencing. For legal professionals and criminal defendants, this case reinforces established principles regarding speedy trial calculations, the standards for admitting identification testimony based on surveillance footage, and notice requirements for in-court identifications. The ruling highlights that even if evidentiary errors occur, they may be deemed harmless if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. No new compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this is a specific case outcome.

Penalties

Three concurrent terms of fourteen years imprisonment.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01413
Docket Number: Ind No. 1369/21; Appeal No. 6085; Case No. 2023-02074
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (1)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

People v Martin (2026 NY Slip Op 01413)
| People v Martin |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01413 |
| Decided on March 12, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided and Entered: March 12, 2026
Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, Mendez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.
Ind No. 1369/21|Appeal No. 6085|Case No. 2023-02074|

*[1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

Michael Martin, Defendant-Appellant.**

Law Office of Lawrence LaBrew, New York (Lawrence P. LaBrew of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Addison Eisley of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan Merchan, J.), rendered April 13, 2023, as amended April 20, 2023, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to three concurrent terms of fourteen years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly determined that 172 days were chargeable to the People, and therefore defendant's right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30(1)(a) was not violated (see People v Humphrey, 231 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1080 [2025]; People v Solano, 206 AD3d 432, 433 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1076 [2023]).

The People did not establish that the police officer possessed sufficient familiarity with defendant to render his identification of defendant on the surveillance footage helpful to the jury (see People v Mosley, 41 NY3d 640, 648 [2024]). The officer did not know defendant before defendant's arrest and spent time with him only while defendant was in custody. Furthermore, there was no testimony indicating that the quality of the surveillance video would have made it difficult to identify defendant (id. at 649, 652). However, any error in admitting the officer's testimony was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (id. at 652-653).

The People were not required to give identification notice pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(b) regarding in-court identification testimony by two witnesses who were familiar with defendant and did not identify him in any police-arranged procedure (see People v DeJesus, 192 AD3d 561, 561 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]).

The court did not err in denying defendant's request for a missing witness charge regarding two eyewitnesses, where the witnesses, who adamantly refused to testify at trial, were unavailable and not in the People's control (see generally People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 196 [2003]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424 [1986]; see People v Bush, 189 AD3d 643, 644 [1st Dept 2020]; People v Hernandez, 256 AD2d 18, 19 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 874 [1999]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 12, 2026