You are here: / / PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED, IN A RODRIGUEZ HEARING, THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT...

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED, IN A RODRIGUEZ HEARING, THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY; WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY.

The Third Department determined the evidence presented at the Rodriguez hearing demonstrated the confidential informant's (CI's) identification of the defendant was confirmatory (i.e., based upon prior acquaintance with the defendant) and, therefore, a Wade hearing to determine the validity of the identification was not necessary. The court also noted that a two-hour discrepancy between when the drug sale took place as alleged in the indictment, and the testimony about the time of the sale at trial, did not deprive the defendant of the ability to defend against the allegations. With respect to the sufficiency of the identification of the defendant, the court wrote:

 

… “[A] Wade hearing is not required when the witness is so familiar with the defendant that there is little or no risk that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification” … . Where, as here, the People assert that the pretrial identification was merely confirmatory, the People bear the burden of “prov[ing] the witness's sufficient familiarity with the defendant at a Rodriguez hearing” … . “Although the People are not obligated to call the identifying witness at [the] Rodriguez hearing” … , they nonetheless must come forward with “sufficient details of the extent and degree of the protagonists' prior relationship” with one another … . Relevant factors to be considered in this regard include “the number of times the witness saw the defendant prior to the crime, the duration and nature of those encounters, time periods and setting of the viewings, time between the last viewing and the crime, and whether the two individuals had any conversations” … . People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 01521, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/CRIMINAL LAW (TWO-HOUR DISCREPANCY RE: TIME OF DRUG SALE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF ABILITY TO DEFEND)/IDENTIFICATION (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/RODRIGUEZ HEARING (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/WADE HEARING (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)

You might also like
HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD.
PAROLE BOARD MAY CONSIDER SUCH FACTORS AS REMORSE AND INSIGHT INTO THE OFFENSE, EVEN THOUGH THOSE FACTORS ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Criteria for Court Review of Agency Action Explained
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF RENTING OUT THE LIMOUSINE, FAILED TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD REPAIR; BRAKE FAILURE CAUSED A CRASH WHICH KILLED 20 PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED (THIRD DEPT).
THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2008; THE DEFENDANTS SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED A LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN 2008 WHICH DEACCELERATED THE DEBT AND RESET THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED AGAIN IN 2009; IN 2018 THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED AGAIN BY THE FILING OF THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS RUNNING FROM EACH MISSED PAYMENT, THE 2018 FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY BROUGHT (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL ALLOWED EVIDENCE PRECLUDED BY A SANDOVAL RULING TO COME IN, AND DID NOT OBJECT TO HEARSAY WHICH REFUTED DEFENDANT’S ALIBI; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
PERMIT/ORDER ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF MARINAS ON LOWER SARANAC LAKE IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST “ASSISTED LIVING” AS OPPOSED TO “RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE” FACILITIES; COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMSSED (THIRD DEPT).

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

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER DECEDENT REVOKED A LOST WILL. HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONER’S...