People v. Ramirez

New York Supreme Court

People v. Ramirez

164 Misc. 2d 342, 624 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 260

DecidedMarch 3, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 164 Misc. 2d 342 (People v. Ramirez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ramirez, 164 Misc. 2d 342, 624 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 260 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Phyllis Orlikoff Plug, J.

The defendant was indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

She was arraigned on the charges in Part AA-1 on October 28, 1994. At the arraignment, the People served a CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice which contained notification of an identification in the following manner: "Confirmatory I.D. by U/C #7430 on 9/23/94.”

[343]*343The defendant has moved for an order precluding identification testimony by the undercover police officer on the ground that the CPL 710.30 notice served was deficient under the holding of People v Lopez (84 NY2d 425). In that case the Court of Appeals held that "the People were also required to inform defendant of the time, place and manner in which the identification was made.” The notice herein does not state the place and manner in which the identification was made other than to state that it was confirmatory (in nature).

The court would be constrained to preclude the identification testimony if the witness were a private citizen. However, since the defendant does not dispute that the identification was made by a trained undercover officer who observed the defendant during a face-to-face drug transaction, knowing that the defendant would shortly be arrested, the defendant is not entitled to a CPL 710.30 notice (People v Newball, 158 AD2d 553 [2d Dept 1990]). The service of the ineffective notice by the People was gratuitous but not fatal.

Finally, where, as here, the viewing consists of a confirmatory identification by an undercover officer, and when the nature and circumstances of the encounter and identification do not warrant it, the defendant is not entitled to a Wade hearing (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 923 [1989]).

In view of the foregoing, the motion to preclude is denied.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Phyllis Orlikoff Plug, J.

The defendant was indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

She was arraigned on the charges in Part AA-1 on October 28, 1994. At the arraignment, the People served a CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice which contained notification of an identification in the following manner: "Confirmatory I.D. by U/C #7430 on 9/23/94.”

[343]*343The defendant has moved for an order precluding identification testimony by the undercover police officer on the ground that the CPL 710.30 notice served was deficient under the holding of People v Lopez (84 NY2d 425). In that case the Court of Appeals held that "the People were also required to inform defendant of the time, place and manner in which the identification was made.” The notice herein does not state the place and manner in which the identification was made other than to state that it was confirmatory (in nature).

The court would be constrained to preclude the identification testimony if the witness were a private citizen. However, since the defendant does not dispute that the identification was made by a trained undercover officer who observed the defendant during a face-to-face drug transaction, knowing that the defendant would shortly be arrested, the defendant is not entitled to a CPL 710.30 notice (People v Newball, 158 AD2d 553 [2d Dept 1990]). The service of the ineffective notice by the People was gratuitous but not fatal.

Finally, where, as here, the viewing consists of a confirmatory identification by an undercover officer, and when the nature and circumstances of the encounter and identification do not warrant it, the defendant is not entitled to a Wade hearing (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 923 [1989]).

In view of the foregoing, the motion to preclude is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 Misc. 2d 342, 624 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramirez-nysupct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack