From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1995
212 A.D.2d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J., Bergin, J.

Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, motion to preclude identification evidence granted and new trial granted. Memorandum: The People's CPL 710.30 notice was inadequate because it failed to inform defendant of the time, place and manner of a photo array identification conducted by the police (see, People v. Lopez, 84 N.Y.2d 425; People v. Merrill, 212 A.D.2d 987 [decided herewith]). Supreme Court erred, therefore, in denying defendant's motion to preclude the identification evidence. Defendant did not waive his right to preclusion by participating in a Wade hearing after the motion to preclude was denied. "The waiver exception cannot become operative in a case such as this when the defendant clearly moved initially to preclude and lost" (People v. Bernier, 73 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008). Furthermore, defendant did not thereafter move for suppression. Whether defendant objected to the Wade hearing is not dispositive. We note that the court should have permitted defense counsel fully to state her objections and argument on the record.


Summaries of

People v. Sang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1995
212 A.D.2d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Sang

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARK SANG, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 997

Citing Cases

In re Courtney C.

However, contrary to the Presentment Agency's contention, its voluntary disclosure form, which gave an…