People v. Velasquez, 816 N.E.2d 578 (NY 2004).

discussed Cited "see" HENDERSON, JR., ANTHONY T., PEOPLE v

N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high

The intent of our prior decision was for the court to conduct a hearing and decide the motion by resolving any issues of credibility that arose at the hearing (see id. at 1671; see generally People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 , lv denied 3 NY3d 663 , reconsideration denied 3 NY3d 682 ).

discussed Cited "see" People v. Henderson

N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high

The intent of our prior decision was for the court to conduct a hearing and decide the motion by resolving any issues of credibility that arose at the hearing (see id. at 1671; see generally People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004], denied upon reconsideration 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).

discussed Cited "see" People v. Henderson

N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high

The intent of our prior decision was for the court to conduct a hearing and decide the motion by resolving any issues of credibility that arose at the hearing (see id. at 1671; see generally People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004], denied upon reconsideration 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).

discussed Cited "see" People v. Releford

N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high

In any event, although there is no “categorical rule exempting from requested Wade hearings confirmatory identifications by police officers by merely labeling them as such” (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 923 [1989]), a hearing is not required where the defendant in a “buy and bust” operation is identified “by a trained undercover officer who observed [the] defendant during the face-to-face drug transaction knowing [that the] defendant would shortly be arrested” (Wharton, 74 NY2d at 922 ; see People v Stubbs, 6 AD3d 1109 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004]; People v Blocker, 309 AD…

discussed Cited "see" People v. Irvine

N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high

We conclude that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and afforded defendant a “reasonable opportunity to present his contentions” (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; see People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 , 682 [2004]).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." SWITKOWSKI, TINA M., PEOPLE v

N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low

Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, however, inasmuch as defense counsel did not object after the court informed defense counsel that it would “not need to hear that audio” because the only legal issue being presented to the court was whether defendant’s statements were voluntary (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see also People v Voorhees, 2 AD3d 1447, 1448 , lv denied 3 NY3d 663 ).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Switkowski

N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low

Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, however, inasmuch as defense counsel did not object after the court informed defense counsel that it would “not need to hear that audio” because the only legal issue being presented to the court was whether defendant’s statements were voluntary (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see also People v Voorhees, 2 AD3d 1447, 1448 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004]).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Switkowski

N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low

Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, however, inasmuch as defense counsel did not object after the court informed defense counsel that it would “not need to hear that audio” because the only legal issue being presented to the court was whether defendant’s statements were voluntary (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see also People v Voorhees, 2 AD3d 1447, 1448 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004]).