In re Vernal J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Vernal J.

266 A.D.2d 215, 697 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11138

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 215 (In re Vernal J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Vernal J., 266 A.D.2d 215, 697 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated June 26, 1998, which, upon granting the respondent’s motion to suppress any in-court identification of the respondent by the complainant, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion to suppress any in-court identification of the respondent by the complainant is denied, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

The record at the independent source hearing indicates, and the Family Court found, that the complainant had a face-to-face encounter with the respondent in a well-lighted restaurant for several minutes. Under these circumstances, the Presentment Agency met its burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that any in-court identification of the respondent was based on the complainant’s independent observations and not on the showup identification (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 US 98; Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188; United States v Wade, 388 US 218; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241; People v Johnson, 211 AD2d 730; People v Steward, 206 AD2d 397; People v Santos, 202 AD2d 258). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated June 26, 1998, which, upon granting the respondent’s motion to suppress any in-court identification of the respondent by the complainant, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion to suppress any in-court identification of the respondent by the complainant is denied, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

The record at the independent source hearing indicates, and the Family Court found, that the complainant had a face-to-face encounter with the respondent in a well-lighted restaurant for several minutes. Under these circumstances, the Presentment Agency met its burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that any in-court identification of the respondent was based on the complainant’s independent observations and not on the showup identification (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 US 98; Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188; United States v Wade, 388 US 218; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241; People v Johnson, 211 AD2d 730; People v Steward, 206 AD2d 397; People v Santos, 202 AD2d 258). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 215, 697 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-vernal-j-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack