You are here: / / Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive
,

Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive

The Second Department determined the pretrial lineup identification procedure was unduly suggestive and sent the case back for an inquiry into whether the complainant had an independent source for the in-court identification:

The defendant was conspicuously displayed in that lineup. He was the only lineup participant dressed in a red shirt, the item of clothing which figured prominently in the description of the assailant's clothing that the complainant gave to the police. Thus, at the lineup, the defendant's red shirt improperly drew attention to his person … . Since the hearing court's erroneous determination effectively precluded the People from proffering evidence as to whether there was an independent source for the complainant's in-court identification, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to provide them with an opportunity to do so … . Pending a hearing and determination on that issue, the appeal is held in abeyance. People v Pena, 2014 NY Slip Op 08667, 2nd Dept 12-10-14 

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PURSUANT TO THE MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) (1) DEFENDANT’S MARIHUANA CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY VACATED (2) ANOTHER CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE VACATED CONVICTION (3) BUT COUNTY COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER SUBSTITUTING ANOTHER CONVICTION SERVED THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
Negligence and Proximate Cause Inextricably Interwoven—Verdict Finding that Defendant Was Negligent but Such Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Injury Properly Set Aside as Against the Weight of the Evidence
THE JUDGE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
PLAINTIFF INJURED IN COLLSION WITH A POLICE CAR, POLICE REPORT PROVIDED CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF EXCUSE.
Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action Under Municipal Law 205-e Allowed

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiff Wife’s Waiver of Her Entitlement (Pursuant to a Divorce Stipulation)... Motion to Set Aside a Verdict Properly Denied When Based Upon an Error Not Preserved...