You are here: / / PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF UNDUE SUGGESTIVENESS...
,

PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF UNDUE SUGGESTIVENESS IN THE PHOTO ARRAY AND LINE UP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

The Second Department, over a substantial dissent, determined defendant's motion to suppress photo array and line up identification evidence should have been granted. The People did not meet their burden to demonstrate the lack of undue suggestiveness. The photo arrays were not preserved and certain detectives who participated in the photo array and line up identification were not called as witnesses at the Wade hearing:

At the suppression hearing, [detective] McDermott testified that he did not preserve the photo arrays viewed by [witness] Seeram because the computer that displayed those arrays was not attached to a printer. He stated that after Seeram identified the defendant from a photo array, McDermott used another computer to print out a single photograph of the defendant using the defendant's NYSID number, and then showed that photogaph to Seeram. It cannot be said that this testimony was sufficient to dispel any inference of suggestiveness. McDermott did not explain why he did not attach a printer to the computer Seeram was using, or why he did not attempt to reconstruct the photo array (see id.). Moreover, the single photograph was not signed by Seeram, and was dated January 9, 2006, the day following Seerem's photographic identification procedure.

Further, the People failed to produce the detective who conducted [witness] Clyne's photographic identification procedure, or the detective who conducted Seeram's lineup identification procedure. Contrary to our dissenting colleague's determination, McDermott did not conduct either of those procedures, and, therefore, could not provide competent evidence as to the circumstances thereof and what, if anything, transpired during those identification procedures… . People v McDonald, 2016 NY Slip Op 03017, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


You might also like
LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S ALLEGEDLY POOR PERFORMANCE; HERE THE EMPLOYER REDUCED PLAINTIFF’S PAY TO RECOUP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTFF’S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WITH A COMPANY TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
10-Year-Old Plaintiff’s Testimony Should Have Been Considered—No Need for Hearing to Determine Testimonial Capacity
THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INLUDE A LIST OF FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES SERVING THE COUNTY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE SCHOOL’S KNOWLEDGE OF A STUDENT’S VIOLENT PROPENSITIES AND THE SCHOOL’S ABILITY TO PREVENT THE STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Review of State Liquor Authority (SLA) Determination Explained
WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN MARKED OFF AS “INACTIVE,” THERE IS NO NOTE OF ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 90-DAY DEMAND AND THERE IS NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, RESTORATION TO THE CALENDAR AT ANY TIME IS AUTOMATIC (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

ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE UNRELATED TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS REVERSIBLE... IF THE SORA COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY,...