People v. Love, 443 N.E.2d 948 (N.Y. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Love, 443 N.E.2d 948 (N.Y. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
297 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Perry, 2026 NY Slip Op 01617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
57 N.Y.2d at 1024 Justifying showup identification in proximity to crime17 citing casesprompt on-the-scene showups, although "less than ideal(,) may * * * be tolerable in the interest of prompt identification1 citing court put it this way · 16 listed here
  • People v. Perry, 2026 NY Slip Op 01617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2026).published
    While the choice to proceed with identification via a showup, even a single-photo showup, is generally disfavored, it may be reasonable in view of its temporal and spatial proximity to the crime ( see People v Love , 57 NY2d 1023, 1024-102…
  • People v. McLean, 143 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).published
    People v Gatling, 38 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]). *539 Although the better practice, when feasible, is not to conduct a showup before multiple witnesses, or, if possible, to instruct the witnesses not to say anyt…
  • People v. Reyes, 142 A.D.3d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).published
    The fact that the prompt showup involved multiple witnesses does not require suppression, and nothing indicates that the witnesses influenced each other in making their simultaneous identifications (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1…
  • People v. Vincenty, 138 A.D.3d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).published
    While the better practice, when feasible, is not to conduct a showup before multiple witnesses (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]), here the officer transporting two witnesses unexpectedly came upon a scene where private securit…
  • People v. Cruz, 129 A.D.3d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    The showup procedure utilized by police was justified in the interest of prompt identification (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541 [1991]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]) and conducted within approximately one hour of the crime des…
  • Matter of Nathaniel W., 121 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2014).published
    The showup, which was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime, was justified by the interest of making a prompt determination as to whether appellant was involved in the crime (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 […
  • In re Carlil M., 116 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    The showup, conducted in very close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime, was justified by the interest of making a prompt determination of whether the witness could identify the suspect (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]…
  • People v. Williams, 87 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).published
    The manner in which the showup was conducted was justified by the exigencies of the case and the interest of prompt identification (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]).
  • In re Abeola C., 83 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).published
    Both the use of a showup and the manner in which it was conducted were justified by the exigencies of the case and the interest of prompt identification (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541 [1991]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]).
  • People v. Parker, 50 A.D.3d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).published
    Both the use of a showup and the manner in which it was conducted were justified by the exigencies of the case and the interest of prompt identification (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541 [1991]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]).
Show 6 more citing cases
  • People v. Wilburn, 40 A.D.3d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2007).published
    While the better practice, when feasible, is not to conduct a showup before multiple witnesses, the procedure conducted here was “tolerable in the interest of prompt identification” (People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]), and there is…
  • People v. Gatling, 38 A.D.3d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2007).published
    The showup took place about 45 minutes after the crime (see People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596 [2003] [upholding showup one hour after crime]), and “procedures that are less than ideal may ... be tolerable in the interest of prompt identificatio…
  • People v. Fox, 11 A.D.3d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).published
    Here, the simultaneous viewing of the defendant by two complainants did not render the showup impermissible given the exigent circumstances of this case (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024-1025 [1982]; People v Cleon, 281 AD2d 554, 555…
  • People v. Rutkoski, 161 Misc. 2d 930 (1994).published
    (People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541 [1991], supra [showup identification conducted while defendant handcuffed, in rear of police car].) The law recognizes that "procedures that are less than ideal may * * * be tolerable in the interest of prompt…
  • People v. Coe, 133 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1987).published
    The Court of Appeals, as well as this court, has consistently held that showup identifications which take place in close physical and temporal proximity to the crime, as occurred here, are permissible (see, People v Love, supra, at 1024-10…
  • People v. Duuvon, 571 N.E.2d 654 (N.Y. 1991).published 2 cites
    (prompt on-the-scene showups, although "less than ideal(,) may * * * be tolerable in the interest of prompt identification)
57 N.Y.2d at 1025 Preserving claims regarding suggestive identification procedures6 citing casesapprehension of defendant in time and space (five minutes and one block, cf. People v Brnja, 50 NY2d 366) to the scene of the crime. Nor was there any…opening of page *1025 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Lewis, 135 A.D.3d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor was allowed to elicit testimony from a detective that the defendant was arrested as a result of two witnesses’ viewings of the lineup is also unpreserved f…
  • People v. Carter, 40 A.D.3d 1211 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).published
    Nevertheless, defendant failed to preserve this issue by proper objection at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1025 [1982]; People v Carter, 31 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 901 [2006]; People v Kelly, 185…
  • People v. Randle, 21 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2005).published
    By failing to object to the admission of the first statement, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning that statement (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1025 [1982]; People v Sinkler, 288 AD2d 844 , 845 [2001],…
  • People v. Bridgefourth, 13 A.D.3d 1165 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2004).published
    Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the identification testimony provided by the People’s witness was bolstered by the testimony of a detective (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1025 [1982]; People v Jennings, 2…
  • People v. Moran, 154 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1989).published
    The only claim raised by defendant relates to purported vouching by the prosecutor during summation, when he said that the two complainants had "no motive to lie” and had testified to "exactly what had happened out there.” Counsel never ob…
  • People v. Banah, 82 A.D.3d 1663 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2011).published
    Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court erred in permitting a police officer to testify with respect to the victim’s showup identification of defendant (see People v Jordan, 261 AD2d 947 [1999], lv…
57 N.Y.2d at 1023 “tolerable in the interest of prompt identification”0 citing cases2 citing courts quote it
    Other citing cases14 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
    Show 4 more citing cases
    The People of the State of New York
    v.
    William Love
    New York Court of Appeals.
    Nov 11, 1982.
    Published opinion
    443 N.E.2d 948
    1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3857
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Darren O’Connor and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney {Stanley K. Shapiro and Donald J. Siewert of counsel), for respondent.
    Cited by 275 opinions  |  Published

    OPINION OF THE COURT

    Memorandum.

    The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

    To the extent that defendant seeks to argue that the showup was not necessary because Officer Phillips had himself identified defendant, the point has not been preserved for our review. Moreover, though the better practice when feasible is not to conduct a showup before a group of witnesses (People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 249), procedures that are less than ideal may, as Adams held, be tolerable in the interest of prompt identification. This is particularly so in a case such as the present, in view of the proximity of the[*1025] apprehension of defendant in time and space (five minutes and one block, cf. People v Brnja, 50 NY2d 366) to the scene of the crime. Nor was there any allegation that the conduct of the police was in any way impermissibly suggestive.

    Defendant’s second claim of error, bolstering contrary to People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471), was not preserved, the objection stated having been no more than the one word “objection” (People v West, 56 NY2d 662).

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

    Order affirmed in memorandum.