You are here: / / THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH USED DEFENDANT’S ARREST PHOTOGRAPH...
,

THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH USED DEFENDANT’S ARREST PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF THE RELATED IDENTIFICATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the burglary conviction and ordering a new trial on that count, determined the identification procedure, using an arrest photograph of the defendant, was unduly suggestive and the related identifications should have been suppressed:

Although the complainant’s identification of a 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 … . Thus, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on the count of burglary in the second degree, to be preceded by a hearing to determine whether an independent source exists for the complainant’s identification of the defendant … . People v Wheeler, 2025 NY Slip Op 03747, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the complainant’s identifications of the defendant from an arrest photograph should have been suppressed. The procedure was unduly suggestive.​

 

You might also like
Implied Definite Term of Duration
DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
County Not Necessary Party In Suit to Recover Taxes Wrongfully Paid to Town
BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE.
THE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON TO APPROACH DEFENDANT AND REQUEST INFORMATION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MEANING OF ‘GROSS EARNED INCOME’ IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AFFECTED THE CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT; THE TERM WAS AMBIGUOUS REQUIRING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A SENTENCE WHICH WAS LATER DETERMINED TO... “BEACH 12,” A NONPARTY WHICH BECAME TITLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY...