People v. Fernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fernandez

179 A.D.2d 553, 579 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 725

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 553 (People v. Fernandez) 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

People v. Fernandez, 179 A.D.2d 553, 579 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

By motion dated April 26, 1986, the defendant moved to suppress identification testimony on the grounds that police had arranged an unduly suggestive showup. The answering papers of the prosecutor asserted that there was no police arranged showup. These papers further indicated that defendant had been identified by one witness at the point where the car in which defendant was fleeing was stopped by the police. He was identified by another witness in an allegedly spontaneous manner at the police station.

At the time, CPL 710.60 required the defendant to allege facts in support of the grounds of a motion to suppress identification testimony. As of November 1, 1986, the statute was charged to eliminate this requirement. In addition, People v Riley (70 NY2d 523 [1987]) now requires the suppression of showup identifications made at police stations unless there are [554]*554exigent circumstances. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for a Wade hearing. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

By motion dated April 26, 1986, the defendant moved to suppress identification testimony on the grounds that police had arranged an unduly suggestive showup. The answering papers of the prosecutor asserted that there was no police arranged showup. These papers further indicated that defendant had been identified by one witness at the point where the car in which defendant was fleeing was stopped by the police. He was identified by another witness in an allegedly spontaneous manner at the police station.

At the time, CPL 710.60 required the defendant to allege facts in support of the grounds of a motion to suppress identification testimony. As of November 1, 1986, the statute was charged to eliminate this requirement. In addition, People v Riley (70 NY2d 523 [1987]) now requires the suppression of showup identifications made at police stations unless there are [554]*554exigent circumstances. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for a Wade hearing. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 553, 579 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fernandez-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack