From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kaminski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 1989
156 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 11, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record does not support the defendant's contention that the prosecution improperly withheld exculpatory evidence pertaining to a photographic identification procedure. On September 26, 1986, the complainant was robbed while leaving a subway platform in Brooklyn. Prior to making positive lineup and in-court identifications of the defendant as the person who robbed her, the complainant had looked through approximately 200 "mug shots". She selected a photograph of an individual who, in her opinion, resembled her assailant, but she indicated that she was not sure. Because of the complainant's equivocation, no action was undertaken by the police with respect to the possible photographic identification. The complainant subsequently made a positive identification of the defendant during a lineup conducted after his arrest for a similar robbery along the same subway line.

The complainant's equivocal selection of a photograph did not constitute a positive identification and the exculpatory nature of this evidence, if any, is highly speculative (see, People v Fappiano, 139 A.D.2d 524). Moreover, the written report of this equivocal photographic identification was apparently lost prior to the defendant's arrest and therefore it was never known or available to the prosecution (see, People v Prendergast, 118 A.D.2d 602). In addition, defense counsel aggressively cross-examined the complainant about her prior attempts to make a photographic identification and he called as a defense witness the police officer who oversaw these attempts (see, People v Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868). Thus, under the circumstances, the defendant sustained no significant prejudice from the loss of the report in question (see, People v Brown, 67 N.Y.2d 555, 559, cert denied 479 U.S. 1093).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Kaminski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 1989
156 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Kaminski

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM KAMINSKI…

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

Date published: Dec 11, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Collins

The fact that the store clerk failed to identify defendant's photograph from an array was fully explored…

People v. Bower

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. We reject the defendant's contention that the indictment should be…