You are here: / / IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, OFFICER WAS TOLD WHO THE...
,

IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, OFFICER WAS TOLD WHO THE POLICE WERE SEEKING TO IDENTIFY BEFORE VIEWING A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL IN THE MOTION PAPERS, IT IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE COUNTY COURT ADDRESSED IT. 

The Fourth Department, reserving on the appeal until County Court rules on other issues related to the suppression of the identification of the defendant, determined County Court erred when it concluded the identification of the defendant by a parole officer viewing a surveillance video was not an unduly suggestive procedure. The Fourth Department first noted that the issue was not preserved for appeal by the motion papers, but was appealable because County Court considered the issue in its findings. The Fourth Department held the procedure unduly suggestive because the parole officer was told who the police were seeking to identify before viewing the video:

… [W]e agree with defendant that, contrary to the court’s determination that “[t]here was no influence or suggestion” by the investigator, the evidence establishes that the investigator suggested to the parole officer prior to her identification that the person depicted committing the robbery on the surveillance video was defendant … . Instead of requesting the parole officer’s assistance in identifying someone from the video without preemptively disclosing the subject of his investigation, the investigator engaged in a conversation “about her being a parole officer for [defendant].” During the conversation, the investigator “asked [the parole officer] if she was familiar with [defendant].” The parole officer responded that she had “lots of contact” with defendant, so the investigator proceeded to ask her to “come down and view a video.” The investigator subsequently met with the parole officer at the police department and asked her to view the video to determine if she recognized anyone, and the parole officer identified defendant as the person committing the robbery. We conclude that the investigator, by contacting the parole officer and inquiring about her familiarity with defendant prior to the parole officer’s viewing of the video, engaged in … undue suggestiveness … inasmuch as his comments improperly suggested to the parole officer that the person she was about to view was a particular acquaintance of hers, i.e., defendant … . People v Gambale, 2017 NY Slip Op 03658, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

You might also like
STREET STOP JUSTIFIED, FACTS AND LAW EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (FOURTH DEPT).
A SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBER WHO YELLED “BE QUIET” INTO A MICROPHONE, THE LOUDNESS OF WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD, DID NOT BREACH A DUTY OWED TO THE STUDENT; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE IS NO LEGAL SUPPORT FOR A ‘TRI-PARENT’ ARRANGEMENT WHERE A FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER OF MOTHER, MOTHER AND FATHER SHARE VISITATION AND CUSTODY OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
PROPOSED 2019 ELECTION REFERENDUM REGARDING PUBLIC EDUCATION OFFICIALS IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER IS IMPERMISSIBLY ADVISORY AND WAS PROPERLY DECLARED VOID (FOURTH DEPT).
Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Was Authorized Under Both State and Federal Law to Prosecute a Case Stemming from the Provision of Federal Medicare Services
BLOCKING THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS A JUSTIFIABLE LEVEL TWO INTRUSION, THE SUBSEQUENT LEVEL THREE INTRUSION WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE INFORMATION KNOWN TO THE POLICE AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT STARTED TO GET OUT OF THE CAR AS THE POLICE APPROACHED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH 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

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE... AFTER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THE PROOF DID NOT...