People v. Myrick, 489 N.E.2d 742 (N.Y. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Myrick, 489 N.E.2d 742 (N.Y. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Santiago, 156 A.D.3d 1386 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2017)
How cited ↗
Cited for
66 N.Y.2d at 904 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • People v. Santiago, 156 A.D.3d 1386 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2017).published
    The People admittedly did not provide the notice required by CPL 710.30 former (1) (b), and they failed to establish that the witness provided a description of the perpetrator before the identification procedure was conducted (cf. People v…
  • People v. Ptah, 149 Misc. 2d 488 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990).published
    (People v Sanders, 66 NY2d 906, 908 [1985]; People v Myrick, 66 NY2d 903, 904 [1985]; People v Irick, 145 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 978 [1989].) .
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Robert Myrick, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 26, 1985.
Published opinion
489 N.E.2d 742
1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17992
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Deborah M. Reyher and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Burton N Lipshie and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone Concur.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that a witness’s testimony concerning the intruder’s description should have been excluded from evidence because the People failed to supply him with statutory pretrial notice of their intention to offer identification testimony (CPL 710.30 [1]) is without merit on these facts because there was evidence the witness gave the description prior to any potentially suggestive showup. Such observation testimony is not within the ambit of CPL 710.30 (see, Memorandum of Assemblyman Weprin, 1976 NY Legis Ann, at 29; cf. People v Sanders, 66 NY2d 906 [decided herewith]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.