You are here: / / THE COMPLAINANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT FROM A SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH...
, ,

THE COMPLAINANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT FROM A SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; PROOF OF SERIOUS INJURY RE: THE ASSAULT CHARGE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive partial dissent, determined: (1) the defendant was entitled to a new trial on the burglary charge because the identification procedure was unduly suggestive; and (2) the serious injury element of the assault charge was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

… [A]lthough the burglary complainant’s identification of the Facebook photograph was not the product of a police-arranged identification procedure, the complainant’s identifications of the defendant from a single arrest photograph were the result of unduly suggestive identification procedures, and those identifications should have been suppressed … . …

… [U]pon the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05[2]), we conclude that the conviction of assault in the second degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that the detective sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9). …

The record did not support a finding that the detective experienced substantial pain. At the time of his discharge from the hospital, the detective assessed his pain as a “3” and was advised to take Tylenol for pain. His “quality” of pain was characterized as “aching.” Furthermore, there was no evidence as to the duration of any pain. People v Wheeler, 2022 NY Slip Op 00442, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

You might also like
Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against City for Negligent Failure to Provide Emergency Medical Services—No “Special Relationship” Alleged
Plaintiff Did Not Demonstrate Standing—No Proof Underlying Debt Was Transferred to the Plaintiff Along with the Mortgage
Absence of Adequate Reason for Errata Sheet (CPLR 3116(a)) Altering Deposition Testimony Precluded Its Acceptance
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ANSWER WAS SERVED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO MOP UP TRACKED IN SNOW AND WATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER RATHER THAN WITH HER FOSTER HOME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
Liability Criteria Re: Tenant for Slip and Fall on Abutting Public Sidewalk Explained
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (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 BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AND... DEFENDANT HAD BEEN RELEASED FOR 12 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING AT THE TIME OF...