From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perrilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 26, 1998
247 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Wallace, III, J., on motion; Steven Barrett, J., at suppression hearing, trial and sentence).


We previously ordered ( 240 A.D.2d 313) that this matter be held in abeyance pending a determination, upon remand to the trial court, as to whether probable cause existed for defendant's arrest. That court properly determined that probable cause existed. We also hold that despite the defective CPL 710.30 (1) notices defendant was not entitled to preclusion and was not deprived of his right to a fair trial.

We find that the hearing court did not err in denying defendant's motion to preclude statement and identification evidence since defendant moved to suppress, thereby waiving the preclusion issue, and the court granted him a Wade/Huntley hearing and denied suppression, thus rendering the evidence admissible (CPL 710.30; People v. Merrill, 87 N.Y.2d 948; see also, People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903).

Since defendant never sought a continuance or similar relief, he failed to preserve his present claim that the defects in the notices caused him undue surprise and affected his strategy. Review in the interest of justice is unwarranted. Since it is uncontroverted that the statement was made to defendant's mother, not to a police officer, there was no entitlement to statement notice or a Huntley hearing ( see, CPL 710.30 [a]; People v. Eldridge, 213 A.D.2d 667, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 781; People v. King, 155 A.D.2d 480, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 869). The failure to state in the identification notice the site of the lineup and the correct officer who conducted the lineup was of little consequence since the notice need only provide defendant with sufficient information so that he might move to suppress a police-arranged identification, as he did here ( People v. McRae, 195 A.D.2d 180, 184-185, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 969). The notice was sufficient, having correctly specified the date, time and nature of the identification procedure ( see, People v. Canute, 190 A.D.2d 745, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 968; People v. Ocasio, 183 A.D.2d 921, lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 932).

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Perrilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 26, 1998
247 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Perrilla

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SERGIO PERRILLA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 26, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 214

Citing Cases

People v. Pannell

Here, the People gave the defense timely notice that the defendant had been identified at a showup by two…

People v. Heller

In cases where a defendant moved to suppress evidence subject to the notice requirements and then was denied…