From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Livingston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1076 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 7, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in summarily denying his request for a Wade hearing based upon the court's conclusion that the identification procedures involving prosecution witness Wonder Scott were only "confirmatory" in nature (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445; People v Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 799). In our view, however, any error in summarily denying defendant's request for a Wade hearing was harmless. In addition to Scott, two other witnesses positively identified defendant as the person who possessed and negotiated the forged check. Moreover, defense counsel, on summation, noted that the only issue was whether defendant had knowledge that the check he possessed was forged.


Summaries of

People v. Livingston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1076 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Livingston

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT LIVINGSTON…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 1076 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

The State of New York v. William Allen

Thus, "suggestiveness" is not a concern and CPL 710.30 is not implicated. Furthermore, defendant's identity…

People v. Gilmer

Here, “defendant simply does not know the facts surrounding [the photo array] pretrial identification…