detective hearing in New York

2026As with any communication, the People must adduce evidence that the arresting officer received the information communicated by the I-card and relied on it in arresting the defendant ( see People v Gonzalez , 80 NY2d 883, 885 [1992] [suppressing evidence where "the information obtained . . . from his fellow detectives was not something on which (the arresting detective) relied in taking action"]; People v Powell , 101 AD3d 756, 758 [2d Dept 2012] ["the People did not present evidence to establish that the officers who stopped and detained the defendant and his codefendant actually received any

2026As with any communication, the People must adduce evidence that the arresting officer received the information communicated by the I-card and relied on it in arresting the defendant (<i>see People v Gonzalez</i>, 80 NY2d 883, 885 [1992] [suppressing evidence where "the information obtained . . . from his fellow detectives was not something on which (the arresting detective) relied in taking action"]; <i>People v Powell</i>, 101 AD3d 756, 758 [2d Dept 2012] ["the People did not present evidence to establish that the officers who stopped and detained the defendant and his codefendant actually re

2026For example, we have applied the fellow officer rule to uphold arrests where the arresting officer acted on a radio transmission from another officer providing a description of an individual who had <span>[*2]</span>just purchased illegal drugs (<i>see People v Ketcham</i>, 93 NY2d 416, 418 [1999]; <i>People v Maldonado</i>, 86 NY2d 631, 633 [1995]; <i>cf.</i> <i>People v Lypka</i>, 36 NY2d 210, 213-214 [1975] [observing that an officer may "act on the strength of . . . a telephone or teletype alert from a fellow officer or department" but remitting to County Court to determine whether the sen

2026As with any communication, the People must adduce evidence that the arresting officer received the information communicated by the I-card and relied on it in arresting the defendant ( see People v Gonzalez , 80 NY2d 883, 885 [1992] [suppressing evidence where "the information obtained . . . from his fellow detectives was not something on which (the arresting detective) relied in taking action"]; People v Powell , 101 AD3d 756, 758 [2d Dept 2012] ["the People did not present evidence to establish that the officers who stopped and detained the defendant and his codefendant actually received any

2026As with any communication, the People must adduce evidence that the arresting officer received the information communicated by the I-card and relied on it in arresting the defendant (<i>see People v Gonzalez</i>, 80 NY2d 883, 885 [1992] [suppressing evidence where "the information obtained . . . from his fellow detectives was not something on which (the arresting detective) relied in taking action"]; <i>People v Powell</i>, 101 AD3d 756, 758 [2d Dept 2012] ["the People did not present evidence to establish that the officers who stopped and detained the defendant and his codefendant actually re

2026For example, we have applied the fellow officer rule to uphold arrests where the arresting officer acted on a radio transmission from another officer providing a description of an individual who had <span>[*2]</span>just purchased illegal drugs (<i>see People v Ketcham</i>, 93 NY2d 416, 418 [1999]; <i>People v Maldonado</i>, 86 NY2d 631, 633 [1995]; <i>cf.</i> <i>People v Lypka</i>, 36 NY2d 210, 213-214 [1975] [observing that an officer may "act on the strength of . . . a telephone or teletype alert from a fellow officer or department" but remitting to County Court to determine whether the sen

2026As with any communication, the People must adduce evidence that the arresting officer received the information communicated by the I-card and relied on it in arresting the defendant ( see People v Gonzalez , 80 NY2d 883, 885 [1992] [suppressing evidence where "the information obtained . . . from his fellow detectives was not something on which (the arresting detective) relied in taking action"]; People v Powell , 101 AD3d 756, 758 [2d Dept 2012] ["the People did not present evidence to establish that the officers who stopped and detained the defendant and his codefendant actually received any

2026As with any communication, the People must adduce evidence that the arresting officer received the information communicated by the I-card and relied on it in arresting the defendant (<i>see People v Gonzalez</i>, 80 NY2d 883, 885 [1992] [suppressing evidence where "the information obtained . . . from his fellow detectives was not something on which (the arresting detective) relied in taking action"]; <i>People v Powell</i>, 101 AD3d 756, 758 [2d Dept 2012] ["the People did not present evidence to establish that the officers who stopped and detained the defendant and his codefendant actually re

2026For example, we have applied the fellow officer rule to uphold arrests where the arresting officer acted on a radio transmission from another officer providing a description of an individual who had <span>[*2]</span>just purchased illegal drugs (<i>see People v Ketcham</i>, 93 NY2d 416, 418 [1999]; <i>People v Maldonado</i>, 86 NY2d 631, 633 [1995]; <i>cf.</i> <i>People v Lypka</i>, 36 NY2d 210, 213-214 [1975] [observing that an officer may "act on the strength of . . . a telephone or teletype alert from a fellow officer or department" but remitting to County Court to determine whether the sen

2021We 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]).

2021The court was entitled to credit the testimony of the detective at the hearing that the witness was not urged or influenced in any way to make a particular selection from the photo array ( see People v Rios , 72 AD3d 1489 , 1490 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 777 [2010], reconsideration denied 16 NY3d 799 [2011]). " 'The evaluation of credibility by the hearing court is entitled to great weight and its determination will be not disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record' " ( People v Johnson , 262 AD2d 1004, 1005 [4th Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1020 [1999]).

2021We 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]).

1997On one occasion the detective was testifying in a murder case in another county, and on another occasion the detective was needed at home as the sole caregiver of his cancer-stricken father (see, CPL 30.30 [4] [g]; People v Lloyd, 141 AD2d 671 ; see also, People v Womack, 229 AD2d 304 ; People v Kindlon, 217 AD2d 793 ; People v Lee, 217 AD2d 637 ; People v Johnson, 191 AD2d 709 ).