People v. Fuentes, 423 N.E.2d 48 (N.Y. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Fuentes, 423 N.E.2d 48 (N.Y. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2017–2018 · …a trial court may reopen a pretrial hearing if it 'is satisfied, upon a showing by the defendant, that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he or she could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination' of his or her pre… at p. 894 ✓
45 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Gilley (nyappdiv, 2018-07-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gilley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
"A trial court may reopen a pretrial hearing if it 'is satisfied, upon a showing by the defendant, that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he [or she] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination' of his [or her] pretrial application" ( People v Fuentes , 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981], quoting CPL 710.40 [4]; accord People v Newell , 148 AD3d 1216, 1219-1220 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1035 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Newell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
“A trial court may reopen a pretrial hearing if it ‘is satisfied, upon a showing by the defendant, that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he [or she] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination’ of his [or her] pretrial application” (People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981], quoting CPL 710.40 [4]; accord People v Rivera, 124 AD3d 1070, 1071 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 971 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Newell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
“A trial court may reopen a pretrial hearing if it ‘is satisfied, upon a showing by the defendant, that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he [or she] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination’ of his [or her] pretrial application” (People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981], quoting CPL 710.40 [4]; accord People v Rivera, 124 AD3d 1070, 1071 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 971 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Robinson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
In any event, the defendant “failed to demonstrate that he discovered additional facts, not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion, that would have affected the court’s ultimate determination of his suppression motion” (People v Ekwegbalu, 131 AD3d 982, 984 [2015]; see People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]; CPL 710.40 [4]), and, under the circumstances, a mistrial was not warranted (see CPL 280.10 [1]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rivera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Although “an order following a suppression motion made pursuant to CPL article 710 ordinarily will be [binding in a subsequent trial]” (People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 504-505 [2000]), “[a] trial court may reopen a pretrial hearing if it ‘is satisfied, upon a showing by the defendant, that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he [or she] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination’ of his [or her] pretrial application” (People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981], quoting CPL 710.40 [4]; see People v McDonald, 82 AD3d 11…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Moore
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The defendant failed to demonstrate that the new facts he proffered in support of the motion were likely to affect the original determination (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Moore
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The defendant failed to demonstrate that the new facts he proffered in support of the motion were likely to affect the original determination (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bellamy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing was properly denied inasmuch as he did not identify any facts not available at the time of the original hearing and, in any event, the inconsistencies elicited during trial were not pertinent and would not have changed the outcome (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]; People v Tucker, 41 AD3d 210 , 211-212 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1153 [2008]; People v DeJesus, 222 AD2d 449 , 450 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 920 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bellamy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing was properly denied inasmuch as he did not identify any facts not available at the time of the original hearing and, in any event, the inconsistencies elicited during trial were not pertinent and would not have changed the outcome (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]; People v Tucker, 41 AD3d 210 , 211-212 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 882 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1153 [2008]; People v DeJesus, 222 AD2d 449 , 450 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 920 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion to reopen the Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]) based on the trial testimony of a witness who viewed a lineup, as he failed to show that additional pertinent facts had been discovered which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of his pretrial motion (see People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]; People v Young, 278 AD2d 437, 438 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion to reopen the Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]) based on the trial testimony of a witness who viewed a lineup, as he failed to show that additional pertinent facts had been discovered which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of his pretrial motion (see People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]; People v Young, 278 AD2d 437, 438 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant failed to show that these officers would have testified to new facts, not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion, that would have affected the court’s ultimate determination of the issue of probable cause (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]; People v McDonald, 82 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2011]; People v Miller, 57 AD3d 568, 570 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant failed to show that these officers would have testified to new facts, not discoverable with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion, that would have affected the court’s ultimate determination of the issue of probable cause (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]; People v McDonald, 82 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2011]; People v Miller, 57 AD3d 568, 570 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Delamota
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he failed to show that the evidence adduced at trial constituted additional pertinent facts which could not have been discovered by him with reasonable diligence before the determination of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence and which would have materially affected that determination (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McCrary
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
The defendant failed to demonstrate that he had discovered additional pertinent facts which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress certain physical evidence and identification testimony, which would materially affect or have affected that determination (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555 [1996]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Henry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
Inasmuch as the record does not support a finding "that additional pertinent facts ha[d] been discovered by the defendant which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion," we conclude that the court properly denied the supplemental motion (CPL 710.40 [4]; see People v Fuentes , 53 NY2d 892, 894 [1981]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Clark (2×)
NY · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial court acted within its legislatively prescribed discretion in denying defendant's application to reopen its pretrial Wade determination (CPL 710.40 [4]; see , People v Fuentes , 53 N.Y.2d 892 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jesus Fuentes, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
May 12, 1981.
423 N.E.2d 48
1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2459
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Donald M. Zolin for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Susan Corkery and Jerrold L. Neugarten of counsel), for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur.
Cited by 39 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We agree with the court below that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s requests to reopen the Wade hearing during the course of the trial. A trial court may reopen a pretrial hearing if it “is satisfied, upon a showing by the defendant, that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination” of his pretrial application. (CPL 710.40, subd 4.) Here, defendant failed to establish any such pertinent facts in support of his motions at trial which would justify the reopening of the Wade hearing. Thus, the trial court committed no error when it refused defendant’s requests to reopen the hearing.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.