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
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).
DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Placing Defendant in the Back of a Patrol Car Did Not Constitute De Facto Arrest
PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING EXPOSURE TO TOXIC FUMES ARE TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO CPLR 214-C (FOURTH DEPT).
THE LANGUAGE IN THE HIPAA FORM, INDICATING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICIAN MAY BUT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SPEAK WITH DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER SUBPOENAED A WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT.

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...