You are here: / / (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A...
,

(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined it was (harmless) error to allow a detective to identify the person depicted in a video as the defendant:

Generally, “lay witnesses must testify only to the facts and not to their opinions and conclusions drawn from the facts,” as it is the jury’s province “to draw the appropriate inferences arising from the facts” … . While, under the proper circumstances, the court has the discretion to allow a lay witness to express his or her opinion that an individual depicted in a surveillance video is the defendant … , here, there was no basis for concluding that the police detective was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether the defendant was depicted in the video …. The detective had arrested the defendant more than two weeks after the crime, and, at that time, briefly interviewed the defendant. “There was no evidence that [the] defendant had changed his appearance prior to trial, and the record is devoid of any other circumstances suggesting that the jury—which had ample opportunity to view [the] defendant—would be any less able than the detective to determine whether [the] defendant was, in fact, the individual depicted in the video” … . People v Reddick, 2018 NY Slip Op 05608, Second Dept 8-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/VIDEO (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO WAS THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER AND WITNESSED A TRUCK STRIKE AND KILL HER BROTHER; SHE ALLEGED SEVERE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA; DEFENDANT’S DISCLOSURE DEMANDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT AND INSTRAGRAM ACCOUNTS, AS WELL AS THE PHONE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES, OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FRIENDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
Law Office Failure Justified Vacation of Default Judgment
A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MENTION DE-ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF FUTURE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT DE-ACCELERATED AND THE SUBSEQUENT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED.
THE DEFENDANT “DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK STATE’S” INSURERS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ACCIDENT; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE... NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND...