You are here: / / PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF UNDUE SUGGESTIVENESS...
,

PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF UNDUE SUGGESTIVENESS IN THE PHOTO ARRAY AND LINE UP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

The Second Department, over a substantial dissent, determined defendant's motion to suppress photo array and line up identification evidence should have been granted. The People did not meet their burden to demonstrate the lack of undue suggestiveness. The photo arrays were not preserved and certain detectives who participated in the photo array and line up identification were not called as witnesses at the Wade hearing:

At the suppression hearing, [detective] McDermott testified that he did not preserve the photo arrays viewed by [witness] Seeram because the computer that displayed those arrays was not attached to a printer. He stated that after Seeram identified the defendant from a photo array, McDermott used another computer to print out a single photograph of the defendant using the defendant's NYSID number, and then showed that photogaph to Seeram. It cannot be said that this testimony was sufficient to dispel any inference of suggestiveness. McDermott did not explain why he did not attach a printer to the computer Seeram was using, or why he did not attempt to reconstruct the photo array (see id.). Moreover, the single photograph was not signed by Seeram, and was dated January 9, 2006, the day following Seerem's photographic identification procedure.

Further, the People failed to produce the detective who conducted [witness] Clyne's photographic identification procedure, or the detective who conducted Seeram's lineup identification procedure. Contrary to our dissenting colleague's determination, McDermott did not conduct either of those procedures, and, therefore, could not provide competent evidence as to the circumstances thereof and what, if anything, transpired during those identification procedures… . People v McDonald, 2016 NY Slip Op 03017, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


You might also like
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF’S 50-H EXAMINATION TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE “FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT” DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (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.
Recovery Under the Doctrine of Quantum Meruit Was Proper—Proof of Damages Was Sufficient
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED.
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DEFENDANT, IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PROXIMATE CAUSE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF, IN OPPOSITION, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
BECAUSE MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED MOTHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT; FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ADMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY MOTHER’S ATTORNEY DEPRIVED MOTHER OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION; ONLY PROOF THE AREA WAS INSPECTED OR CLEANED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL WILL SUFFICE (SECOND DEPT).
RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S RECEIPT OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING RECOVERY OF UNREIMBURSED SPECIAL DAMAGES (SECOND 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

ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE UNRELATED TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS REVERSIBLE... IF THE SORA COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY,...