You are here: / / PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED, IN A RODRIGUEZ HEARING, THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT...

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED, IN A RODRIGUEZ HEARING, THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY; WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY.

The Third Department determined the evidence presented at the Rodriguez hearing demonstrated the confidential informant's (CI's) identification of the defendant was confirmatory (i.e., based upon prior acquaintance with the defendant) and, therefore, a Wade hearing to determine the validity of the identification was not necessary. The court also noted that a two-hour discrepancy between when the drug sale took place as alleged in the indictment, and the testimony about the time of the sale at trial, did not deprive the defendant of the ability to defend against the allegations. With respect to the sufficiency of the identification of the defendant, the court wrote:

 

… “[A] Wade hearing is not required when the witness is so familiar with the defendant that there is little or no risk that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification” … . Where, as here, the People assert that the pretrial identification was merely confirmatory, the People bear the burden of “prov[ing] the witness's sufficient familiarity with the defendant at a Rodriguez hearing” … . “Although the People are not obligated to call the identifying witness at [the] Rodriguez hearing” … , they nonetheless must come forward with “sufficient details of the extent and degree of the protagonists' prior relationship” with one another … . Relevant factors to be considered in this regard include “the number of times the witness saw the defendant prior to the crime, the duration and nature of those encounters, time periods and setting of the viewings, time between the last viewing and the crime, and whether the two individuals had any conversations” … . People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 01521, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/CRIMINAL LAW (TWO-HOUR DISCREPANCY RE: TIME OF DRUG SALE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF ABILITY TO DEFEND)/IDENTIFICATION (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/RODRIGUEZ HEARING (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/WADE HEARING (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)

You might also like
THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR COULD NOT IMPOSE A NEW “RULE” WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN SUBJECT TO THE FORMAL RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (THIRD DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.27 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DIRECTIVES; THE DISSENT ARGUED DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 202.27 WAS IMPROPER AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Collective Bargaining Agreement Did Not Allow Private Suit Against Employer
CARRIER’S APPLICATION TO REOPEN CLAIM WAS MADE WITHOUT REASONABLE GROUNDS, PENALTY PROPERLY IMPOSED.
The Absence of Proof Defendants Disclosed Slanderous Statements Included in Letters to Plaintiff Precluded a “Name-Clearing” Hearing/The Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Consider “Ostracism and Rejection” Damages Absent Proof Defendants Were Responsible for Republication of the Slanderous Remarks by Third Persons
DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL COULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE “HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT),” AN INMATE WHO IS FACING SEGREGATED CONFINEMENT HAS A RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL AT THE DISPOSITIONAL PHASE OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​
GARAGEKEEPER’S LIEN DECLARED NULL AND VOID UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES (THIRD 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

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER DECEDENT REVOKED A LOST WILL. HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONER’S...