You are here: / / THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED...
,

THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY OF THE LINEUP; THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the detective who conducted a line-up identification with the defendant was aware defendant was represented by an attorney, but did not notify the attorney of the line-up. The identification evidence should have been suppressed:

As a general rule, a defendant does not have the right to counsel at a preaccusatory, investigatory lineup … . However, there are two exceptions. The first is when a defendant is actually represented by an attorney in the matter under investigation and the police know, or can be charged with knowledge of, that representation … . The second is when a defendant who is already in custody and represented by an attorney in an unrelated case invokes the right by requesting his or her attorney … . In either case, “[o]nce the right to counsel has been triggered, the police may not proceed with the lineup without at least apprising the defendant’s lawyer of the situation and affording the lawyer a reasonable opportunity to appear. A specific request that the lineup not proceed until counsel is so notified need not be made” … .

Here, prior to the lineup, the attorney representing the defendant on another matter spoke to the arresting officer and identified herself as the defendant’s attorney. The detective who conducted the lineup testified at the suppression hearing that he was aware prior to conducting the lineup that the defendant was represented by an attorney. Moreover, the only reasonable inference from the detective’s testimony was that he was aware that the defendant was represented by the attorney with respect to the robbery case under investigation. People v Marion, 2021 NY Slip Op 02177, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

You might also like
In a Prohibition Proceeding Brought Under Article 78, Trial Judge’s Mistrial Order Deemed Improper, Retrial Precluded​
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENDANT WAS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING HE RESIDED AT AN ADDRESS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT).
FACT THAT DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR HAD BEEN ISSUED A PERMIT FOR DRILLING IN THE STREET DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR CREATED A DEFECT IN THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE DID NOT START RUNNING; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof of Lack of Constructive Notice Insufficient.
PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (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

DEFENDANT ALLEGED A PROSECUTOR WHO PARTICIPATED IN HIS PROSECUTION HAD REPRESENTED... DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED (1) HE WAS MISADVISED THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT...