green
Positive treatment
13.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Evans
The court also properly found that the lineup relating to the attempted murder incident was not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 *130 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Suttles
In reviewing the court's suppression determination, we consider whether the People met their "burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance" ( People v Berrios , 28 NY2d 361, 367 [1971] [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]; see People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Dortch , 186 AD3d 1114, 1115 [4th Dept 2020]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Johnson
We thus conclude that the court properly determined that the People met their initial burden of establishing that the police conduct with respect to the photo array procedure was reasonable and that defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive ( see People v Logan , 178 AD3d 1386 , 1387 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 1028 [2020]; see generally People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Goins
We thus conclude that the court properly determined that the People met their initial burden of establishing that the police conduct with respect to the photo array procedure was reasonable and that defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive ( see People v Logan , 178 AD3d 1386 , 1387 [4th Dept [*2]2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 1028 [2020]; see generally People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Logan
The People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct at issue, and defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the photo array procedures were unduly suggestive ( see People v Alston , 101 AD3d 1672, 1672-1673 [4th Dept 2012]; see generally People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Serrano
The People must initially establish that the police conduct was reasonable and that the photo array lacks any undue suggestiveness, but "the defendant . . . bears the ultimate burden of proving that the pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive" ( People v Quintana , 159 AD3d 1122 , 1126 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 31 NY3d 1086 [2018]; see People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Peterkin
“The composition and presentation of the photo array were such that there was no reasonable possibility that the attention of the witness [es] would be drawn to defendant as the suspect chosen by the police” (People v Sylvester, 32 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 929 [2006]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gambale
With respect to the merits, it is well settled that “a pretrial identification procedure that is unduly suggestive violates a defendant’s due process rights and is not admissible” (People v Marshall, 26 NY3d 495, 503 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). “ ‘[T]here is nothing inherently suggestive’ in showing a witness a surveillance video depicting the defendant and other individuals, provided that the ‘defendant was not singled-out, portrayed unfavorably, or in any other manner prejudiced by polic…
discussed
Cited "see"
GAMBALE, JOSEPH J., PEOPLE v
With respect to the merits, it is well settled that “a pretrial identification procedure that is unduly suggestive violates a defendant’s due process rights and is not admissible” (People v Marshall, 26 NY3d 495, 503 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 , cert denied 498 US 833 ). “ ‘[T]here is nothing inherently suggestive’ in showing a witness a surveillance video depicting the defendant and other individuals, provided that the ‘defendant was not singled-out, portrayed unfavorably, or in any other manner prejudiced by police conduct or commen…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Carrasquillo-Fuentes
Consequently, County Court properly concluded that “[t]he composition and presentation of the photo array [s] were such that there was no reasonable possibility that the attention of the witness [es] would be drawn to defendant as the suspect chosen by the police” (People v Sylvester, 32 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 929 [2006]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Carrasquillo-Fuentes
Consequently, County Court properly concluded that “[t]he composition and presentation of the photo array [s] were such that there was no reasonable possibility that the attention of the witness [es] would be drawn to defendant as the suspect chosen by the police” (People v Sylvester, 32 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 929 [2006]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
CARRASQUILLO-FUENTES, EMILIER, PEOPLE v
Consequently, County Court properly concluded that “[t]he composition and presentation of the photo array[s] were such that there was no reasonable possibility that the attention of the witness[es] would be drawn to defendant as the suspect chosen by the police” (People v Sylvester, 32 AD3d 1226, 1227 , lv denied 7 NY3d 929 ; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 , cert denied 498 US 833 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Lanier
County Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the pretrial identifications. “[A] pretrial identification that is unduly suggestive violates due process and is therefore inadmissible against the defendant” (People v Smith, 122 AD3d 1162, 1163 [2014]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hill
Although defendant was taller than two of the fillers used in the lineup, “ ‘the alleged variations in appearance between the fillers and the defendant were not so substantial as to render the lineup impermissibly suggestive’ ” (People v Davis, 115 AD3d 1167, 1170 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1019 [2014]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Freeney, 291 AD2d 913, 913 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 637 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hill
Although defendant was taller than two of the fillers used in the lineup, “ ‘the alleged variations in appearance between the fillers and the defendant were not so substantial as to render the lineup impermissibly suggestive’ ” (People v Davis, 115 AD3d 1167, 1170 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1019 [2014]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Freeney, 291 AD2d 913, 913 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 637 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
HILL, GARTH, PEOPLE v
Although defendant was taller than two of the fillers used in the lineup, “ ‘the alleged variations in appearance between the fillers and the defendant were not so substantial as to render the lineup impermissibly suggestive’ ” (People v Davis, 115 AD3d 1167, 1170 , lv denied 23 NY3d 1019 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Freeney, 291 AD2d 913, 913 , lv denied 98 NY2d -2- 410 KA 11-01583 637).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Dark
The People correctly concede that such identification was not merely confirmatory (see People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587, 592 [1990]), but even assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel could have established suggestiveness of the identification procedure, we agree with the People that defense counsel could have concluded that there was an independent source for the identification of defendant by the subject undercover officer at trial (see People v Claitt, 222 AD2d 1038 , 1038-1039 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 982 [1996]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 […
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Dark
The People correctly concede that such identification was not merely confirmatory (see People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587, 592 [1990]), but even assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel could have established suggestiveness of the identification procedure, we agree with the People that defense counsel could have concluded that there was an independent source for the identification of defendant by the subject undercover officer at trial (see People v Claitt, 222 AD2d 1038 , 1038-1039 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 982 [1996]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 […
discussed
Cited "see"
DARK, DAVAN, PEOPLE v
The People correctly concede that such identification was not merely confirmatory (see People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587, 592 ), but even assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel could have established suggestiveness of the identification procedure, we agree with the People that defense counsel could have concluded that there was an independent source for the identification of defendant by the subject undercover officer at trial (see People v Claitt, 222 AD2d 1038 , 1038- 1039, lv denied 88 NY2d 982 ; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 , cert denied 498 US 833 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Snell
The People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct at issue, and defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see People v Alston, 101 AD3d 1672, 1672-1673 [2012]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
SNELL, JAQUON, PEOPLE v
The People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct at issue, and defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see People v Alston, 101 AD3d 1672, 1672-1673 ; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 , cert denied 498 US 833 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Snell
The People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct at issue, and defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see People v Alston, 101 AD3d 1672, 1672-1673 [2012]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hall
The court properly determined that those statements were admissible because they were not “ ‘provoked, induced [or] encouraged by police conduct or interrogation’ . . . , but were made voluntarily and spontaneously in the course of a dialogue initiated and continued by defendant” (People v Johnson, 277 AD2d 702, 706 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 831 [2001]; see generally People v Gonzales, 75 NY2d 938, 939 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hall
The court properly determined that those statements were admissible because they were not “ ‘provoked, induced [or] encouraged by police conduct or interrogation’ . . . , but were made voluntarily and spontaneously in the course of a dialogue initiated and continued by defendant” (People v Johnson, 277 AD2d 702, 706 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 831 [2001]; see generally People v Gonzales, 75 NY2d 938, 939 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
HALL, HAROLD, PEOPLE v
The court properly determined that those statements were admissible because they were not “ ‘provoked, induced [or] encouraged by police conduct or interrogation’ . . . , but were made voluntarily and spontaneously in the course of a dialogue initiated and continued by defendant” (People v Johnson, 277 AD2d 702, 706 , lv denied 96 NY2d 831 ; see generally People v Gonzales, 75 NY2d 938, 939 , cert denied 498 US 833 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
ALSTON, FLOYD, PEOPLE v
The court properly determined that the People met their initial burden of establishing that the police conduct with respect to the photo array procedure was reasonable and that defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the photo array was unduly suggestive (see People v Santiago, 96 AD3d 1495, 1496 ; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 , cert denied 498 US 833 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Alston
The court properly determined that the People met their initial burden of establishing that the police conduct with respect to the photo array procedure was reasonable and that defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the photo array was unduly suggestive (see People v Santiago, 96 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2012]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Alston
The court properly determined that the People met their initial burden of establishing that the police conduct with respect to the photo array procedure was reasonable and that defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the photo array was unduly suggestive (see People v Santiago, 96 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2012]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Garcia
Additionally, defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress the identification evidence is without merit inasmuch as the lineup was not unduly suggestive (see People v Corchado, 299 AD2d 843, 844 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 581 [2003]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
GARCIA, FRANK, PEOPLE v
Additionally, defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress the identification evidence is without merit inasmuch as the lineup was not unduly suggestive (see People v Corchado, 299 AD2d 843, 844 , lv denied 99 NY2d 581 ; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 , cert denied 498 US 833 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Garcia
Additionally, defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress the identification evidence is without merit inasmuch as the lineup was not unduly suggestive (see People v Corchado, 299 AD2d 843, 844 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 581 [2003]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Beliard
The victim later told police that she had been mistaken and identified defendant in a different photo array. “[T]he purpose of a Wade hearing is not to determine whether there are inconsistent identifications nor to obtain more fodder for cross-examination . . . [but] to examine police procedures surrounding an out-of-court identification of the defendant for a taint of suggestiveness” (Lynn v Bliden, 443 F3d 238, 249 [2d Cir 2006], cert denied 549 US 1257 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Beliard
The victim later told police that she had been mistaken and identified defendant in a different photo array. “[T]he purpose of a Wade hearing is not to determine whether there are inconsistent identifications nor to obtain more fodder for cross-examination . . . [but] to examine police procedures surrounding an out-of-court identification of the defendant for a taint of suggestiveness” (Lynn v Bliden, 443 F3d 238, 249 [2d Cir 2006], cert denied 549 US 1257 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Elamin
Indeed, we note that, at a reopened Wade hearing, the People could have called the victim to testify to establish that he had an independent basis for his in-court identification of defendant (see People v Hill, 53 AD3d 1151 [2008]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
ELAMIN, ROBERT, PEOPLE v
Indeed, we note that, at a reopened Wade hearing, the People could have called the victim to testify to establish that he had an independent basis for his in-court identification of defendant (see People v Hill, 53 AD3d 1151 ; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 , cert denied 498 US 833 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Lawal
We find that the People met their initial burden to establish that the police conduct was reasonable and their procedure was not unduly suggestive, and that defendant did not meet her ultimate burden “to establish that the identification was infected by impropriety or undue suggestiveness” (People v Chatham, 55 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2008]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rios
We perceive no basis to disturb that credibility determination inasmuch as it cannot be said that the photo array was unduly suggestive (see People v Diggs, 19 AD3d 1098 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 787 [2005], amended on rearg 21 AD3d 1438 [2005]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Ballinger
“There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by persons who are nearly identical in appearance” (People v Nieves, 183 AD2d 854, 856 [1992]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Herndon, 47 AD3d 837 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smiley
Here, “[t]he composition and presentation of the photo array were such that there was no reasonable possibility that the attention of the witnesses] would be drawn to defendant as the suspect chosen by the police” (People v Sylvester, 32 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 929 [2006]; see People v Dean, 28 AD3d 1118 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 787 [2006]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Herndon
“There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by persons who are nearly identical in appearance” (People v Nieves, 183 AD2d 854, 856 [1992]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Wilson
There is thus clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s determination that the victim had an independent basis for his in-court identification of defendant (see People v Mikel, 237 AD2d 982 [1997]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Taylor
The record does not support defendant’s contention that the second photo array was conducted in an attempt to draw attention to defendant’s photograph or to indicate that the police were urging the victim to make a particular selection (see People v Martinez, 298 AD2d 897, 897-898 [2002], Iv denied 98 NY2d 769 [2002] , cert denied 538 US 963 [2003], reh denied 539 US 911 [2003] ; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Solis
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. “[T]here is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by persons who are nearly identical in appearance” (People v Kirby, 34 AD3d 695 [2006]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Green, 14 AD3d 578 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Martinez
While in the police vehicle en route to the showup, defendant overheard either a police radio broadcast concerning guns used in the course of the robbery or the two officers talking to each other about the guns, whereupon he stated, “I didn’t have a gun, I had a knife.” We conclude that defendant was not subjected to police action that was likely to elicit an incriminating response, and the court therefore properly refused to suppress the statement (see People v Boyd, 21 AD3d 1428, 1429 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 773 [2005]; see generally People v Gonzales, 75 NY2d 938, 939-940 [1990], cer…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Young
Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court properly determined that the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the victim had an independent basis for her in-court identification of him (see People v Brennan, 261 AD2d 914, 915 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 820 [1999]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 . [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rodriguez
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the photo array was not unduly suggestive (see People v Clark, 15 AD3d 864 [2005]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). “[T]he subjects depicted in the photo array are sufficiently similar in appearance so that the viewer’s attention is not drawn to any one photograph in such a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection” (People v Quinones, 5 AD3d 1093, 1093 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 646 [2004]; see People v Cunningham, 15 AD3d 945 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Clark
The court also properly determined that the photo array was not unduly suggestive (see People v Williams, 5 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 809 [2004]; People v Quinones, 5 AD3d 1093 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 646 [2004]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Green
“There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by persons who are nearly identical in appearance” (People v Nieves, 183 AD2d 854, 856 [1992]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Mason, 138 AD2d 411, 412 [1988]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Egan
Based on the testimony at the Wade hearing, we further conclude that the identification procedure involving the use of a book of approximately 200 mugshots and other photographs was not unduly suggestive. “[T]he viewer’s attention is not drawn to defendant’s photo in such a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection” (People v Rogers, 245 AD2d 1041, 1041 [1997]; see People v Merriweather, 298 AD2d 950 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 561 [2002]), and there was not a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification (see People v Chipp, 75…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Corchado
Photographs of the two lineups establish that the subjects were of similar age, height and build, and had similar skin color and facial characteristics (see People v Rayford, 291 AD2d 833, 834 , lv denied 98 NY2d 680 ; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 , cert denied 498 US 833 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Riley
v.
Sullivan
v.
Sullivan
No. 89-7609.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1990.
498 U.S. 833
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.