People v. Rutledge

New York County Courts

People v. Rutledge

150 Misc. 2d 948, 571 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 271

CourtNew York County Courts

DecidedMay 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 150 Misc. 2d 948 (People v. Rutledge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rutledge, 150 Misc. 2d 948, 571 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 271 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

David D. Egan, J.

A motion was made to suppress in-court identification of the defendant on the grounds that the CPL 710.30 notice did not specify the evidence to be offered as required by statute citing People v Palermo (169 AD2d 787 [2d Dept 1991]).

The form CPL 710.30 notice given to defendant reads, "The People intend to offer testimony identifying defendant as a person who committed the offense charged, to be given by a witness who previously identified defendant as such.” This language is essentially the same as the language in Palermo (supra), cited by defense.

This court declines to follow Palermo (supra). The CPL 710.30 notice given defendant is sufficient to alert him to the [949]*949identification aspects of the case. The defendant may clarify the issue through the automatic hearing required by CPL 710.60. Indeed, the defendant has requested such a hearing which this court grants. (United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]; CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; [4].)

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