You are here: / / PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM...

PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE.

The First Department determined the showup identification was not unduly suggestive, despite the presence of police officers and an officer’s statement to the victim they may have someone who matched the perpetrator’s description:

Police, who undisputedly had a sufficient basis for a common-law inquiry of defendant based on their investigation of a robbery, entered defendant’s apartment with the consent of another resident. After the resident who answered the door knocked on a bathroom door, defendant came out of the bathroom and complied with an officer’s request to move to a position between two officers. Meanwhile, an officer told the victim that the police might have someone who matched the description, and then brought him to the apartment. While defendant was flanked on both sides by two officers, and other officers were nearby, the victim identified defendant as one of the robbers. …

The showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, in light of the “close spatial and temporal proximity to the robbery, as the result of a single unbroken chain of events,” and the fact that defendant was not physically restrained … . Notwithstanding the presence of several police officers in or near the apartment, and an officer’s statement to the victim that the police had someone who might match the description provided by the victim, “the overall effect of the allegedly suggestive circumstances was not significantly greater than what is inherent in any showup” … . People v Vizcaino, 2017 NY Slip Op 01811, 1st Dept 3-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION (PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)

You might also like
NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN, BUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE MOTION PAPERS, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED BY THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; COUNSEL SAID A GUILTY PLEA MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION WHEN DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEY FAILED TO PROVE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO REMEDY THE WET FLOOR, AND THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PASSED OUT AT A CONCERT, REFUSED ASSISTANCE IN WALKING TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER SO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN COULD CHECK HIS BLOOD PRESSURE AND PULSE; WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO WALK TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER HE PASSED OUT AGAIN AND FELL, HIS FACE HITTING THE FLOOR; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST PLAINTIFF AFTER HE REFUSED THEIR HELP AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration

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

PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED... REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE...