pre-Wade hearing in New York

1995Additionally, a pre- Wade hearing to determine the extent of the witnesses’ prior familiarity with the defendant was not required because the defendant did not controvert the People’s assertion that the eyewitnesses had known the defendant for many years (see, People v Rodriguez, supra; People v Ballard, 198 AD2d 289 ; People v Ambroise, 142 AD2d 647, 648 ; People v Huggins, 199 AD2d 1025 ).

1993Additionally, a pre- Wade hearing to determine the confirmatory nature of the identification was not warranted because there was no showup and the defendant did not controvert the witness’s assertion that he knew the defendant (cf., People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 ).

1995Additionally, a pre- Wade hearing to determine the extent of the witnesses’ prior familiarity with the defendant was not required because the defendant did not controvert the People’s assertion that the eyewitnesses had known the defendant for many years (see, People v Rodriguez, supra; People v Ballard, 198 AD2d 289 ; People v Ambroise, 142 AD2d 647, 648 ; People v Huggins, 199 AD2d 1025 ).

1993Additionally, a pre-Wade hearing to determine the confirmatory nature of the identification was not warranted because there was no showup and the defendant did not controvert the witness’s assertion that he knew the defendant (see, People v Ballard, 198 AD2d 289 [decided herewith]; cf., People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 ).

2015Instead, upon defendant’s motion, a court must hold a formal pretrial hearing to determine whether the police or prosecutor conducted an out-of-court identification procedure that exposed the witness to defendant’s identity in an unduly suggestive manner (Boyer, 6 NY3d at 431 ).

2015Instead, upon defendant's motion, a court must hold a formal pre-trial hearing to determine whether the police or prosecutor conducted an out-of-court identification procedure that exposed the witness to defendant's identity in an unduly suggestive manner (Boyer, 6 NY3d at 431 ).

2015In Herner ( 85 NY2d at 878 ), during the course of preparing the identifying witness to testify at trial, the prosecutor showed her a picture of the lineup at which she had identified the defendant.

2015In Herner ( 85 NY2d at 878 ), during the course of preparing the identifying witness to testify at trial, the prosecutor showed her a picture of the lineup at which she had identified the defendant.

2002To the contrary, the undisputed facts as hereinbefore set forth establish that no CPL 710.30 notice was required because Cotter’s first viewing of the photograph did not constitute an identification (see, People v Cuevas, 167 Misc 2d 738, 741 ) and the subsequent viewings were confirmatory as a matter of law (see, People v Rodriguez, supra at 449-450 ; People v Bell, 286 AD2d 940 , lv denied 97 NY2d 654 ; People v Montgomery, 213 AD2d 563, 564 , affd 88 NY2d 926 ).

2002Even if we were to find that a pre-Wade hearing is a stage of the proceedings at which defendant’s presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charges (see, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 436 ; People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941, 942 ) and the waiver communicated by defendant’s counsel was insufficient (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 ), the error was nevertheless harmless because there was no legal basis for conducting a preWade hearing in the first instance.

2002Even if we were to find that a pre-Wade hearing is a stage of the proceedings at which defendant’s presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charges (see, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 436 ; People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941, 942 ) and the waiver communicated by defendant’s counsel was insufficient (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 ), the error was nevertheless harmless because there was no legal basis for conducting a preWade hearing in the first instance.

2002To the contrary, the undisputed facts as hereinbefore set forth establish that no CPL 710.30 notice was required because Cotter’s first viewing of the photograph did not constitute an identification (see, People v Cuevas, 167 Misc 2d 738, 741 ) and the subsequent viewings were confirmatory as a matter of law (see, People v Rodriguez, supra at 449-450 ; People v Bell, 286 AD2d 940 , lv denied 97 NY2d 654 ; People v Montgomery, 213 AD2d 563, 564 , affd 88 NY2d 926 ).

2002To the contrary, the undisputed facts as hereinbefore set forth establish that no CPL 710.30 notice was required because Cotter’s first viewing of the photograph did not constitute an identification (see, People v Cuevas, 167 Misc 2d 738, 741 ) and the subsequent viewings were confirmatory as a matter of law (see, People v Rodriguez, supra at 449-450 ; People v Bell, 286 AD2d 940 , lv denied 97 NY2d 654 ; People v Montgomery, 213 AD2d 563, 564 , affd 88 NY2d 926 ).

2002To the contrary, the undisputed facts as hereinbefore set forth establish that no CPL 710.30 notice was required because Cotter’s first viewing of the photograph did not constitute an identification (see, People v Cuevas, 167 Misc 2d 738, 741 ) and the subsequent viewings were confirmatory as a matter of law (see, People v Rodriguez, supra at 449-450 ; People v Bell, 286 AD2d 940 , lv denied 97 NY2d 654 ; People v Montgomery, 213 AD2d 563, 564 , affd 88 NY2d 926 ).

2002Even if we were to find that a pre-Wade hearing is a stage of the proceedings at which defendant’s presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charges (see, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 436 ; People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941, 942 ) and the waiver communicated by defendant’s counsel was insufficient (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 ), the error was nevertheless harmless because there was no legal basis for conducting a preWade hearing in the first instance.

2002Even if we were to find that a pre-Wade hearing is a stage of the proceedings at which defendant’s presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charges (see, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 436 ; People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941, 942 ) and the waiver communicated by defendant’s counsel was insufficient (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 ), the error was nevertheless harmless because there was no legal basis for conducting a preWade hearing in the first instance.

2002Even if we were to find that a pre-Wade hearing is a stage of the proceedings at which defendant’s presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charges (see, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 436 ; People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941, 942 ) and the waiver communicated by defendant’s counsel was insufficient (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 ), the error was nevertheless harmless because there was no legal basis for conducting a preWade hearing in the first instance.

2002Even if we were to find that a pre-Wade hearing is a stage of the proceedings at which defendant’s presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charges (see, People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 436 ; People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941, 942 ) and the waiver communicated by defendant’s counsel was insufficient (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 ), the error was nevertheless harmless because there was no legal basis for conducting a preWade hearing in the first instance.

1995Additionally, a pre- Wade hearing to determine the extent of the witnesses’ prior familiarity with the defendant was not required because the defendant did not controvert the People’s assertion that the eyewitnesses had known the defendant for many years (see, People v Rodriguez, supra; People v Ballard, 198 AD2d 289 ; People v Ambroise, 142 AD2d 647, 648 ; People v Huggins, 199 AD2d 1025 ).

1995Additionally, a pre- Wade hearing to determine the extent of the witnesses’ prior familiarity with the defendant was not required because the defendant did not controvert the People’s assertion that the eyewitnesses had known the defendant for many years (see, People v Rodriguez, supra; People v Ballard, 198 AD2d 289 ; People v Ambroise, 142 AD2d 647, 648 ; People v Huggins, 199 AD2d 1025 ).

1993Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.