People v. Perdomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perdomo

280 A.D.2d 617, 720 N.Y.S.2d 205, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 617 (People v. Perdomo) 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. Perdomo, 280 A.D.2d 617, 720 N.Y.S.2d 205, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered January 15, 1999, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by the prosecution’s delay in producing Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866) is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to move for a mistrial or to request any other sanction on this ground (see, People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027; People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843, 844). In any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56). The material [618]*618was produced before the defendant’s counsel cross-examined the prosecution’s first witness, and his counsel was granted a recess to review it (see, People v Bostic, 258 AD2d 467, 468; People v Mann, 216 AD2d 796, 801).

In general, a witness may not testify concerning a previous identification of a defendant from photographs (see, People v Cioffi, 1 NY2d 70, 73; People v Green, 143 AD2d 768, 770; People v Grate, 122 AD2d 853, 854). However, such testimony is permitted when the defendant opens the door to this line of inquiry (see, People v Bolden, 58 NY2d 741; People v Grate, supra). The defendant’s counsel asked the complainant if she was shown a single photograph of the defendant just before she viewed the lineup, thereby permitting the prosecutor to demonstrate the fairness of the identification procedure (see, People v Almonte, 135 AD2d 824; People v Grate, supra). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the subsequent testimony of a detective was not improper bolstering, as he did not confirm the complainant’s identification of the defendant (see, People v Middleton, 128 AD2d 554; People v Lopez, 123 AD2d 360; cf., People v Grate, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered January 15, 1999, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by the prosecution’s delay in producing Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866) is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to move for a mistrial or to request any other sanction on this ground (see, People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027; People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843, 844). In any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56). The material [618]*618was produced before the defendant’s counsel cross-examined the prosecution’s first witness, and his counsel was granted a recess to review it (see, People v Bostic, 258 AD2d 467, 468; People v Mann, 216 AD2d 796, 801).

In general, a witness may not testify concerning a previous identification of a defendant from photographs (see, People v Cioffi, 1 NY2d 70, 73; People v Green, 143 AD2d 768, 770; People v Grate, 122 AD2d 853, 854). However, such testimony is permitted when the defendant opens the door to this line of inquiry (see, People v Bolden, 58 NY2d 741; People v Grate, supra). The defendant’s counsel asked the complainant if she was shown a single photograph of the defendant just before she viewed the lineup, thereby permitting the prosecutor to demonstrate the fairness of the identification procedure (see, People v Almonte, 135 AD2d 824; People v Grate, supra). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the subsequent testimony of a detective was not improper bolstering, as he did not confirm the complainant’s identification of the defendant (see, People v Middleton, 128 AD2d 554; People v Lopez, 123 AD2d 360; cf., People v Grate, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 617, 720 N.Y.S.2d 205, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perdomo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack