You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING...

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THERE MAY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES AT THE POLICE STATION BY A POLICE OFFICER, CASE SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, sending the case back to Supreme Court, found that a hearing was necessary to determine whether the police officers engaged in identification procedures at the police station and, if so, whether the identifications were confirmatory. The People did not notify the defendant of any identification procedures in their CPL 710.30 notice:

… [T]he People provided a blank CPL 710.30 notice to defendant and, in response to that part of his omnibus motion seeking preclusion, asserted that “[t]here were no identification procedures which would require a CPL 710.30 notice.” The record before us establishes … that the officer and his partner may have engaged in showup identification procedures undertaken “at the deliberate direction of the State” that required notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 … . The evidence at the suppression hearing established that defendant fled from the front passenger seat of the parked vehicle and was unsuccessfully pursued by the officer, and that the officer knew defendant was apprehended because the officer saw defendant after he was later taken into custody by a third officer. The record further indicates, and the People do not dispute, that, after defendant was arrested and brought to the police station by the third officer at the officer’s direction, the officer identified defendant as the front seat passenger who fled from the parked vehicle. …

Although the People contend that any police station identifications were merely confirmatory, and it appears from the record that the officer and his partner may have been familiar with defendant prior to the subject incident, we are precluded from affirming on that ground inasmuch as the court did not rule on that issue … . People v Davis, 2018 NY Slip Op 02051, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THERE MAY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES AT THE POLICE STATION BY A POLICE OFFICER, CASE SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THERE MAY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES AT THE POLICE STATION BY A POLICE OFFICER, CASE SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))/710.30 NOTICE (ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THERE MAY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES AT THE POLICE STATION BY A POLICE OFFICER, CASE SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))/PRECLUSION (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THERE MAY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES AT THE POLICE STATION BY A POLICE OFFICER, CASE SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Frisk Not Justified Under DeBour Analysis
Plaintiff Did Not Raise Question of Fact About Whether Municipality Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect and Was Affirmatively Negligent
87 DAY DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE DESPITE THE ‘READY FOR TRIAL’ ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS (FOURTH DEPT).
PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT).
No Assets Left to Distribute—Disposition of a Painting Which Was Part of the Estate and Had Been Donated to a Museum Could Be Protected by the Attorney General (Charged with Protecting the Donor’s Wishes)–No Need to Issue Letters of Administration to Petitioner to Ensure Proper Use of the Painting
Emergency Doctrine Precluded Action on Behalf of Driver of Car Which Crossed Into On-Coming Lane of Traffic; ”Noseworthy” Doctrine Did Not Apply to Reduce Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Burden of Proof
COCAINE IS NOT DANGEROUS CONTRABAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE FIRST DEGREE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE SECOND DEGREE (PROHIBITING ‘CONTRABAND,’ AS OPPOSED TO ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND’) (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANOTHER OFFENSE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CHARGES (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

NOTICE OF INTENTION INSUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE... DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR SENTENCE...