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
PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT).
Law Re: Liquidated Damages Explained
No Requirement that Defendant Submit Affidavit in Support of Suppression Motion; No Requirement Defendant Deny Commission of Charged Offense to Warrant a Hearing on a Suppression Motion
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORIZED CHANGING THE CHILD’S NAME TO A NAME NOT REQUESTED IN FATHER’S PETITION, A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE NAME CHANGE IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF AT RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED GRAND JURY REPORTS RE: THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT, NONFEASANCE OR NEGLECT IN OFFICE OF THREE PUBLIC OFFICIALS; THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS’ DUTIES (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER SOUGHT ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT UNDER THE “CATALYST THEORY;” THE 4TH DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE CATALYST THEORY, FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT THE PREVAILING PARTY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).
MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING, DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF PROBATION WAS NOT SPECIFIED (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 © 2025 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...