From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1999
261 A.D.2d 143 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 6, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J., at suppression hearing; John Stackhouse, J., at jury trial and sentence).


We find that the procedure in which defendant and the other participants were directed to sit, and then to stand, constituted one lineup, of which defendant received sufficient notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b) ( see, People v. Lopez, 84 N.Y.2d 425).

Although defendant was absent from the court's preliminary discussion of Sandoval issues, since the court essentially held a de novo hearing in his presence and since he had the opportunity to object on the record prior to the final Sandoval ruling, he was not deprived of the opportunity to provide meaningful input ( People v. Roman, 88 N.Y.2d 18, 29; People v. Yhel, 215 A.D.2d 793, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 805).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1999
261 A.D.2d 143 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VIRGILIO MARTINEZ…

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

Date published: May 6, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 143 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 198

Citing Cases

People v. Johnson

The record does not establish that defendant was absent from a preliminary discussion of Sandoval issues at…

People v. Hoey

Additionally, although the People suggest that defendant had an opportunity to review the rulings shortly…