You are here: / / ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING...
,

ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING BASED UPON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION THE COMPLAINANT AND THE DEFENDANT KNEW EACH OTHER, THE TRIAL TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT IN FACT KNEW EACH OTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES THAT THE IDENTIFICATION ISSUE BE RESOLVED BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed defendant’s conviction over a substantive dissent. Arguing against a Wade hearing addressing the suggestiveness of the complainant’s identification of the defendant from single photograph displays, the prosecutor told the judge the complainant and the defendant knew each other and the identification procedures were merely confirmatory. Defendant denied knowing the complainant and requested a Rodriguez hearing. The judge denied the request based on the People’s assertion the identification procedures were confirmatory. The denial of the Rodriguez hearing was deemed to be error, but the majority concluded the hearing was not necessary because the trial testimony demonstrated the complainant knew the defendant. The dissent argued the Court of Appeals, in the Rodriguez case, required resolution of the identification issue before trial:

The Supreme Court erred in relying on the People’s mere assurances of familiarity in denying the defendant’s pretrial request for a Rodriguez hearing  … . Nevertheless, a hearing with regard to the single-photograph identifications made by the complainant soon after the shooting was ultimately unnecessary inasmuch as the complainant’s trial testimony demonstrated that he was sufficiently familiar with the defendant, whom he knew and referred to by the defendant’s street name,”Chulo,” such that the complainant’s identification of the defendant from the photo display was merely confirmatory … . * * * When a crime has been committed by a . . . long-time acquaintance of a witness there is little or no risk that comments by the police, however suggestive, will lead the witness to identify the wrong person'” … . Any suggestiveness of the initial photo identification procedure or the purported taint thereafter was not a concern since ” the protagonists are known to one another'” … . ​People v Carmona, 2020 NY Slip Op 03672, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; NO “ESPINAL” EXCEPTIONS WERE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR DEMONSTRATED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT MAKE THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED: ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE ISSUE CAN BE DECIDED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE WHERE PLAINTIFF MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WAS NOT PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
Mistaken Classification of Property Resulting In a Much Too Large Tax Bill Was a “Clerical Error” Which Could Be Corrected by the City Department of Finance—No Need for Property Owner to Commence a Tax Certiorari Proceeding
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
HERE THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE WAS DEEMED AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RELATONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND THE ACTUAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
Allegation that Town Planted a Tree Near a Sidewalk and Did Not Maintain the Roots, Thereby Creating a Dangerous Condition, Is an Allegation of “Nonfeasance,” not an “Affirmative Act of Negligence”
Downward Departure Warranted in SORA Proceeding Where Victim’s Lack of Consent Was Solely By Virtue of Age
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME; HERE IT WAS RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WAS INSUFFICIENT (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

THE CONDITIONAL DIRECTIVE THAT FATHER BE AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IF MOTHER DID... RESTITUTION PAYABLE TO THE CRIME VICTIMS BOARD EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY CAP FOR...