You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY. STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, found that a property owner, West River, which had a statutory duty to maintain an abutting sidewalk, was not entitled to summary judgment based solely on the fact that the defect in the sidewalk over which plaintiff tripped was not in front West River’s property. The expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was in front of a neighboring property (the Mercado property). However, a nearby portion of the sidewalk which had subsided was in front of West River’s property. Therefore, to be entitled to summary judgment, West River was required to demonstrate it did not breach its duty to maintain the sidewalk, or that any such breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall.  Simply demonstrating the expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of West River’s property was not enough:

 

Plaintiff tripped on an expansion joint that abutted the Mercados’ property. That does not end the inquiry, nor does the fact that the defect upon which plaintiff tripped was in front of the Mercado property necessarily absolve West River of liability. Although West River did not have a duty to remedy any defects in front of the Mercado property, section 7-210 (a) [of the Administrative Code of the City of New York] imposed a duty on West River to maintain the sidewalk abutting its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Moreover, the plain language of section 7-210 (b) provides that West River may be held liable for injuries where its failure to maintain its sidewalk is a proximate cause of that injury. Here, most of the sunken sidewalk flag that plaintiff traversed abutted West River’s property, and plaintiff claims that West River’s sidewalk flag had sunk lower than the expansion joint upon which plaintiff allegedly tripped. Thus, West River failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, leaving factual questions as to whether West River breached its duty to maintain the sidewalk flag abutting its property and, if so, whether that breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment should have been denied. Sangaray v West Riv. Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01002, CtApp 2-11-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SIDEWALKS (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)

,

BASED ON THE UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY, THE TERM “OCCURRENCE” REFERRED TO EACH TIME A MEMBER OF THE CLASS WAS INJURED, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE; THEREFORE THE DEDUCTIBLE WAS TRIGGERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH INJURED CLASS MEMBER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the policy-term “occurrence,” for purposes of applying the deductible for each “occurrence,” meant each time a member of the class was injured, and not the single injury to the class as a whole. The class action was brought by an arrestee who was illegally strip-searched at the county jail. 800 others similarly searched made up the class. The insurance policy taken out by the county included a deductible of $10,000 for each “occurrence.” The county argued that the injury to the class as a whole was a single occurrence and triggered only one $10,000 deductible. The court held that, based on the plain language of the policy, each strip-search constituted a separate occurrence. Therefore the $10,000 deductible applied to each member of the class (making the county liable for all the damage payments):

 

The plain language of the insurance policy indicates that the improper strip searches of the arrestees over a four-year period constitute separate occurrences under the policies at issue. Contrary to the County’s argument, the definition of “occurrence” in the policies is not ambiguous. The policy defines ‘occurrence’ as “an event, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results in . . . ‘personal injury’ . . . by any person or organization and arising out of the insured’s law enforcement duties” (emphasis added). Thus, the language of the insurance policies makes clear that it covers personal injuries to an individual person as a result of a harmful condition. The definition does not permit the grouping of multiple individuals who were harmed by the same condition, unless that group is an organization, which is clearly not the case here. The harm each experienced was as an individual, and each of the strip searches constitutes a single occurrence … . Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v County of Rensselaer, 2016 NY Slip Op 01001, CtApp 2-11-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (CLASS ACTION, DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)/CLASS ACTION (INSURANCE POLICY DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CLASS ACTION, COUNTY’S INSURANCE POLICY DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)

FOR PURPOSES OF THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK PERIOD FOR SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender because the operative prior conviction occurred outside the 10-year look-back period. Defendant was convicted of assault and sentenced to probation in 1994. He subsequently violated probation and was sentenced to incarceration in 1995. The lower courts used the 1995 sentence, which was within the 10-year look-back. But the Court of Appeals determined the 1994 sentence controlled. The revocation of probation in 1995 did not annul the original 1994 sentence:

 

The People would have us believe that sentence was imposed with respect to the prior conviction twice — once, in 1994, when defendant was subject to a period of probation through the original sentence, and again in 1995, when defendant was subject to a period of incarceration through the resentence. To be sure, the period of probation was imposed as part of a revocable sentence (Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [a] [i]), which is a “tentative [punishment in] that it may be altered or revoked” (Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [b]). For all other purposes, however, a revocable sentence “shall be deemed to be a final judgment of conviction” (id.), and where “the part of the sentence that provides for probation is revoked, the court must sentence [a defendant] to imprisonment or to [a] sentence of imprisonment and probation” (Penal Law § 60.01 [4] [emphasis added]). The legislature’s reference to the revocation of the part of the sentence imposing probation suggests that the substitution of a different punishment — such as incarceration — for the probation a defendant has violated does not constitute a new sentence, but rather a replacement of the original, conditional penalty reflected in the sentence.

Put differently, to revoke a penalty of probation does not equate to annulling a sentence. People v Thompson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00997, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)/SENTENCING (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)/SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS/(TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)

,

TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RELIEVED DEFENSE COUNSEL ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS BECAUSE A POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge did not err by relieving defendant’s attorney, over defendant’s objection, on conflict of interest grounds.  The defense attorney, Fisher, worked for New York County Defender Services (NYCDS). Another NYCDS attorney had represented Stephens, who was involved in the same incident which led to the charges against the defendant. Fisher had no knowledge of the facts of Stephens’ case, but, before he learned of the conflict, Fisher had been looking for Stephens during his investigation as a possible witness. Fisher was instructed by his supervisors at NYCDS he could not question Stephens, call Stephens as a witness, or cross-examine Stephens if the People called him. The defendant told the trial judge he was willing to waive the conflict, because he wanted Fisher to act as his attorney, but he wanted to call Stephens as a witness. The trial judge determined the conflict warranted the assignment of new counsel:

 

… [T]he Appellate Division erred in holding that the trial court abused its discretion. Supreme Court appropriately balanced defendant’s countervailing rights, based on the information it had at the time, and reasonably concluded that Fisher could not effectively represent defendant due to NYCDS’s representation of Stephens and the duty of loyalty Fisher’s supervisors were asserting toward that former client. People v Watson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00998, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)

, ,

PROSECUTION’S USE OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION; THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott (who adopted the dissent by Justice Garry in the Appellate Division), determined that the prosecution’s proof of defendant’s post-Miranda silence as he was being transported by the police violated defendant’s due process rights under the state constitution. The error, however, was deemed harmless because the court found there was no reasonable possibility the error contributed to defendant’s conviction. The defendant’s conviction was therefore upheld. The defendant acknowledged commission of the crimes (two murders) but raised the extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense. The Court of Appeals held that evidence of defendant’s silence upon arrest, which apparently was aimed at disproving or calling into question the EED defense, did not contribute to the jury’s rejection of the EED defense. The opinion includes extensive discussions of the use of evidence of a defendant’s silence and the related violation of state constitutional rights, the EED proof requirements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. People v Pavone, 2015 NY Slip Op 09315, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/EVIDENCE (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/SILENCE (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)

,

THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN HEAR THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE; A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS UNDERLYING THE FOREIGN CONVICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the Court of Appeals could hear the appeal of an unpreserved sentencing issue first raised in a motion to vacate the sentence (Criminal Procedure Law 440.20) and further determined that a Washington DC robbery conviction should not have been deemed a predicate felony. Because the DC statute could be violated by “snatching” property from someone, an act which would not be felony robbery in New York, the Court of Appeals held it could not be the basis for defendant’s conviction as a second felony offender, irrespective of whether the actual facts underlying the DC conviction would constitute a felony in New York:

A CPL 440.20 motion is the proper vehicle for raising a challenge to a sentence as “unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law” (CPL 440.20 [1]), and a determination of second felony offender status is an aspect of the sentence (see CPL 70.06 [included in CPL article 70, addressing sentences of imprisonment]). One of the legal defects that can be challenged in a CPL 440.20 motion is an alleged error in sentencing a defendant as a second or third felony offender, including the decision to consider certain prior convictions as predicates. Raising the predicate felony sentencing issue in a CPL 440.20 motion serves the goals and purposes of the preservation rule by permitting the parties to present their arguments on the issue in the trial court, creating a record for appellate review, and allowing the trial court the first opportunity to correct any error [FN3]. Thus, we may address defendant’s current challenge — that the sentence was illegal because the D.C. conviction did not render him a second felony offender — on the appeal of the denial of his CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence. * * *

… [U]nder the D.C. statute the taking can occur (1) by force or violence, or (2) by putting in fear. The force or violence element can be accomplished (1) against resistance, or (2) by sudden or stealthy seizure, or (3) by snatching … . Stated another way, “the statute must be interpreted to include ‘stealthy seizure’ as a form of ‘force or violence'” … . The statutory language means that the crime can be committed in different ways, and the phrase “sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching” does not describe separate criminal acts required by the statute in addition to the use of “force or violence” … . Consequently, we do not look at the underlying accusatory instrument to determine if the crime is equivalent to a New York felony … . Because the statute, itself, indicates that a person can be convicted of the D.C. crime without committing an act that would qualify as a felony in New York (i.e., by pickpocketing), defendant’s D.C. conviction for attempt to commit robbery was not a proper basis for a predicate felony offender adjudication … . People v Jurgins, 2015 NY Slip Op 09311, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEAL OF UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE LIES FROM DENIAL OF A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE)/CRIMINAL LAW (FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS OF A PREDICATE FELONY)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL OF UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE LIES FROM DENIAL OF A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE)/PREDICATE FELONY (A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A PREDICATE FELONY)/FOREIGN FELONY (A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A PREDICATE FELONY)

, , ,

WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined a judgment of conviction and sentence becomes final when the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal expires (where no notice is filed). Here the issue was whether the defendant could move to vacate his conviction by guilty plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Because the motion to vacate would not be available if defendant’s conviction and sentence became final before Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) was decided (requiring that a defendant be informed of deportation consequence of a plea), the date of finality was determinative. If the finality date is 30 days after conviction and sentence, defendant’s conviction and sentence would have been final before Padilla was decided. If, as defendant argued, the conviction and sentence became final one year and 30 days after the conviction and sentence, when the time for moving to file a late notice of appeal expired, defendant’s conviction and sentence would not have been final before Padilla was decided. Because the Court of Appeals decided the conviction and sentence became final when no notice of appeal was filed within 30 days, defendant could not move to vacate his conviction:

Adopting defendant’s reasoning would result in uncertainty in the finality of judgments in many procedural situations. For example, a defendant who takes a direct appeal to the Appellate Division but does not seek leave to appeal to this Court in a timely fashion could argue that the judgment was not final until one year and 30 days after the Appellate Division affirmance, inasmuch as the defendant could have sought leave from this Court to file a belated application for discretionary review pursuant to CPL 460.30 (1). Or, a defendant who has filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division but has had the appeal dismissed due to failure to perfect could argue that the judgment is not yet final, inasmuch as the defendant could ask the Appellate Division to vacate the dismissal of the appeal.

Indeed, if we adopt defendant’s logic, other defendants who did not take a direct appeal conceivably could argue that their judgments were never final, inasmuch as they could seek to file a late notice of appeal even after the one-year grace period of CPL 460.30 has expired by moving for a writ of error coram nobis … . People v Varenga, 2015 NY Slip Op 09312, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES)/JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (BECOMES FINAL UPON EXPIRATION OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL)

FAILURE TO PRESERVE PHOTO ARRAY GIVES RISE TO A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS SUGGESTIVE; THE PRESUMPTION CAN BE REBUTTED BY DETAILING THE PROCEDURES USED TO SAFEGUARD AGAINST SUGGESTIVENESS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, with a concurring opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, adopted an analytical framework for determining whether a photo array which has not been preserved is unduly suggestive. When a  photo array is not preserved, a presumption arises that the array was suggestive. That presumption can be rebutted. If the presumption is rebutted, the burden of demonstrating undue suggestiveness passes to the defendant. Here, the victim was shown over 100 computer generated images after the police entered criteria based upon eyewitness-descriptions of the perpetrator. Because those images were not preserved, a presumption of suggestiveness arose. Evidence that the victim picked out the defendant, and only the defendant, from the 100 images rebutted that presumption. Defendant thereafter did not meet his burden of showing undue suggestiveness:

Under Appellate Division case law, “the failure of the police to preserve a photographic array [shown to an identifying witness] gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the array was suggestive” … . The rebuttable presumption fits within the burden-shifting mechanism in the following manner. Failure to preserve a photo array creates a rebuttable presumption that the People have failed “to meet their burden of going forward to establish the lack of suggestiveness” … . To the extent the People are silent about the nature of the photo array, they have not met their burden of production. On the other hand, the People may rebut the presumption by means of testimony “detailing the procedures used to safeguard against suggestiveness” …, in which case they have met their burden, and the burden shifts to the defendant. Although we have not expressly adopted this presumption of suggestiveness before, we endorse it now. People v Holley, 2015 NY Slip Op 09314, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PHOTO ARRAY, PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS IF NOT PRESERVED)/IDENTIFICATION (PHOTO ARRAY, PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS IF NOT PRESERVED)/PHOTO ARRAY (PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS IF NOT PRESERVED)

,

HEARSAY STATEMENT BY AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a statement made by an unavailable witness should have been admitted as a statement against penal interest. The defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated. The out-of-court statement made by the unavailable witness indicated that she, not the defendant, was driving. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, reversed defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial. The court held that all of the following elements of the declaration-against-penal-interest exception to the hearsay rule were supported by sufficient evidence at trial:

The declaration-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule “flows from the fact that a person ordinarily does not reveal facts that are contrary to his own interest” unless those facts are true … . A statement qualifies as a declaration against interest if four elements are met: (1) the declarant is unavailable to testify as a witness; (2) when the statement was made, the declarant was aware that it was adverse to his or her penal interest; (3) the declarant has competent knowledge of the facts underlying the statement; and (4) supporting circumstances independent of the statement itself attest to its trustworthiness and reliability … . People v Soto, 2015 NY Slip Op 09316, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/EVIDENCE (STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/HEARSAY (STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST (REVERSIBLE ERROR TO EXCLUDE)

“TRIAL PREPARATION” EXCEPTION TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER A PHOTOGRAPHIC DISPLAY IS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, IN THE FORM OF A HERNER HEARING, SHOULD NO LONGER BE EMPLOYED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Lippman, held that the “trial preparation” exception to a determination whether a photographic display is unduly suggestive, in the form of a Herner hearing, should no longer be employed. The complainant was shown a photograph of the defendant shortly before trial, ostensibly as part of “trial preparation.” Defense counsel asked for a full-fledged Wade hearing to determine whether the single-photograph-showing was unduly suggestive.  Instead only a Herner hearing was held to determine if a judicial determination of suggestiveness was needed. The trial court determined no judicial determination of suggestiveness was necessary. Although the Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in not conducting a full Wade hearing, it further found the complainant’s identification of defendant was otherwise validated by an “independent source.” The dissent disagreed and argued the conviction should be reversed:

Defendant claims that the trial preparation exception recognized in Herner is inconsistent with New York’s approach to suggestive pre-trial identifications. We agree. By employing this truncated hearing protocol, the court failed to reach the essential question whether the photograph display was unduly suggestive, and, if so, whether it tainted complainant’s identification of defendant. When a defendant challenges the suggestiveness of an out-of-court viewing of defendant’s likeness, the central issue presented for judicial consideration is whether the pre-trial display is conducted under circumstances bearing the earmarks of improper influence and unreliability, which create the risk of mistaken identification and thus infect the truth-seeking process. People v Marshall, 2015 NY Slip Op 09313, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL PREPARATION EXCEPTION TO WADE HEARING REJECTED)/IDENTIFICATION (TRIAL PREPARATION EXCEPTION TO WADE HEARING REJECTED)/HERNER HEARING (TRIAL PREPARATION EXCEPTION TO WADE HEARING REJECTED)/WADE HEARING (TRIAL PREPARATION EXCEPTION TO WADE HEARING REJECTED)

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