You are here: / / ​ THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE TRIAL WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION O...
, ,

​ THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE TRIAL WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; A MIDTRIAL RODRIGUEZ HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing to determine whether a witness’s identification of defendant was confirmatory, noted that the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory for the first time based on the witness’s trial testimony. A Rodriguez hearing should have been when the issue came up at trial:

The witness in question disclosed on cross-examination at trial that he had identified defendant as the assailant in a photograph shown to him by the police. The People’s CPL 710.30 notice did not reference this identification. Defense counsel thus asked the court to strike the witness’s testimony on the ground of lack of notice, but the court, relying on the witness’s trial testimony, ruled that the People were not required to give notice because the identification was confirmatory. That was error. As the Court of Appeals has made clear, “prior familiarity should not be resolved at trial in the first instance” (Rodriguez, 79 NY2d at 452 …), and, in any event, the witness’s trial testimony was not sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the identification was confirmatory.

Although the witness testified that he knew defendant because he had seen him “a couple of times” at the barber shop, and that the two had each other’s phone numbers, he also testified that he did not know defendant well, that he knew him only by a common nickname, and that they never spoke again after the assault. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing would have allowed defense counsel to flesh out the extent of the relationship between the two men, thereby allowing the court to make a more informed determination as to whether the pretrial identification of defendant was confirmatory as a matter of law. People v Alcaraz-ubiles, 2023 NY Slip Op 01637, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: If the defense is not given notice of a witness’s identification of the defendant, the witness cannot testify about the identification unless it was “confirmatory,” I.e., based on knowing the defendant. Here the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory based on the witness’s trial testimony. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing should have been held. The matter was remitted.

 

You might also like
Land Owned by Power Company Which Does Not Now Produce Sewage and Garbage Properly Subject to Ad Valorem Taxes for Sewage and Garbage
DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INFORMED OF THE PRESENCE OF A FOREIGN BODY IN HIS PELVIS; THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S CUSTOM OR HABIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Child’s Unemancipated Status Was Revived Entitling Father to Child Support
A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION ABSENT AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OR OTHER DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE ZONING CODE (FOURTH DEPT).
JUDGE WHO WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM HEARING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
THE ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM BY PLAINTIFF’S COWORKER DURING A FIREARMS TRAINING SESSION FOR ARMORED-CAR GUARDS WAS WITHIN THE DEFENDANT COWORKER’S SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH 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 COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND DEFENDANT’S... DEFENDANT’S OFFER TO PROVIDE FALSE TESTIMONY IN A SEPARATE ACTION IS NOT...