Wade hearing in New York

2022At the Wade hearing ( see United States v Wade , 388 US 218 ), the People established, in the first instance, that the pretrial identification procedures were not improper, and the defendant failed to establish that they were unduly suggestive ( see People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 ; People v Carmona , 185 AD3d 600, 602 ).

2022At the Wade hearing ( see United States v Wade , 388 US 218 ), the People established, in the first instance, that the pretrial identification procedures were not improper, and the defendant failed to establish that they were unduly suggestive ( see People v Chipp , 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 ; People v Carmona , 185 AD3d 600, 602 ).

2025Supreme Court ordered a Rodriguez / Wade hearing to determine whether to preclude the witnesses from identifying defendant as the perpetrator at trial ( see generally People v Rodriguez , 79 NY2d 445 [1992]; United States v Wade , 388 US 218 [1967]).

2025Supreme Court ordered a Rodriguez / Wade hearing to determine whether to preclude the witnesses from identifying defendant as the perpetrator at trial ( see generally People v Rodriguez , 79 NY2d 445 [1992]; United States v Wade , 388 US 218 [1967]).

2025A Wade hearing is meant to "test identification testimony for taint arising from official suggestion during police-arranged confrontations between a defendant and an eyewitness." People v Dixon , 85 NY2d 218, 222 (1995); People v. Kilgore , 218 AD3d 1054, 1056 (3d Dept. 2023).

2025A Wade hearing is meant to "test identification testimony for taint arising from official suggestion during police-arranged confrontations between a defendant and an eyewitness." People v Dixon , 85 NY2d 218, 222 (1995); People v. Kilgore , 218 AD3d 1054, 1056 (3d Dept. 2023).

2018In any event, the motion court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony, without granting a Wade hearing, because the information presented to the court clearly established that the identification was confirmatory under the principles set forth in People v Wharton ( 74 NY2d 921 [1989]).

2018In any event, the motion court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony, without granting a Wade hearing, because the information presented to the court clearly established that the identification was confirmatory under the principles set forth in People v Wharton ( 74 NY2d 921 [1989]).

2021Initially, we conclude that the court did not err in refusing to hold a Wade hearing. "[A] court may summarily deny a Wade hearing (and hence no CPL 710.30 notice would be required) where the court concludes that, as a matter of law, the identifying, civilian witness knew the 'defendant so well that no amount of police suggestiveness could possibly taint the identification' " ( People v Boyer , 6 NY3d 427, 432 [2006]).

2021Initially, we conclude that the court did not err in refusing to hold a Wade hearing. "[A] court may summarily deny a Wade hearing (and hence no CPL 710.30 notice would be required) where the court concludes that, as a matter of law, the identifying, civilian witness knew the 'defendant so well that no amount of police suggestiveness could possibly taint the identification' " ( People v Boyer , 6 NY3d 427, 432 [2006]).

2015However, we repeat our previous observation that to avoid unnecessary additional proceedings, the hearing should fully address whether there is some basis for inclusion at trial of the challenged identification (see People v Wilson, 5 NY3d 778, 780 [2005] [“in light of the ‘risk for completely renewed proceedings’ whenever a pretrial identification is challenged, the People are generally well-advised to come forward with any independent source evidence at a Wade hearing so that the suppression court may, where appropriate, rule in the alternative”], quoting People v Burts, 78 NY2d 20, 25 [1991

2015However, we repeat our previous observation that to avoid unnecessary additional proceedings, the hearing should fully address whether there is some basis for inclusion at trial of the challenged identification (see People v Wilson, 5 NY3d 778, 780 [2005] [“in light of the ‘risk for completely renewed proceedings’ whenever a pretrial identification is challenged, the People are generally well-advised to come forward with any independent source evidence at a Wade hearing so that the suppression court may, where appropriate, rule in the alternative”], quoting People v Burts, 78 NY2d 20, 25 [1991

2018County Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen the Wade hearing ( see People v Clark , 88 NY2d 552, 555-556 [1996]).

2018County Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen the Wade hearing ( see People v Clark , 88 NY2d 552, 555-556 [1996]).

2015Had there been a Wade hearing as there should have, since, as the majority correctly notes, there is “no basis to maintain a distinction between viewings of a defendant’s image in preparation for trial and any other out-of-court identifications [since] [b]oth expose a witness to defendant’s likeness, with the potential risk for undue suggestiveness” (majority op at 506), the prosecution would have had the burden of going forward to demonstrate that the photo display was not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

2015Had there been a Wade hearing as there should have, since, as the majority correctly notes, there is “no basis to maintain a distinction between viewings of a defendant’s image in preparation for trial and any other out-of-court identifications [since] [b]oth expose a witness to defendant’s likeness, with the potential risk for undue suggestiveness” (majority op at 506), the prosecution would have had the burden of going forward to demonstrate that the photo display was not unduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

2025PO Thompson, the People's only witness, [*3]testified to information that she learned from L.S. [FN1] Normally, when the parties are unknown, the court must conduct a Wade hearing to determine whether the previous identification of the defendant was improper (CPL § 710.60 [4]). [FN2] However, "[i]n cases in which the defendant's identity is not in issue, or those in which the protagonists are known to one another, 'suggestiveness' is not a concern and, hence, [CPL § 710] does not come into play" ( People v. Gissendanner , 48 NY2d 543, 552 [1979]).

2025PO Thompson, the People's only witness, [*3]testified to information that she learned from L.S. [FN1] Normally, when the parties are unknown, the court must conduct a Wade hearing to determine whether the previous identification of the defendant was improper (CPL § 710.60 [4]). [FN2] However, "[i]n cases in which the defendant's identity is not in issue, or those in which the protagonists are known to one another, 'suggestiveness' is not a concern and, hence, [CPL § 710] does not come into play" ( People v. Gissendanner , 48 NY2d 543, 552 [1979]).

2019Inasmuch as the witness who identified defendant in the second showup procedure did not testify at the Wade hearing, "the People did not establish that [he] had an independent basis for [his] in-court identification of defendant" ( People v Hill , 53 AD3d 1151, 1151 [4th Dept 2008]), and "there is no evidence upon which this Court can base such a determination" ( People v Walker , 198 AD2d 826, 828 [4th Dept 1993]).

2019Inasmuch as the witness who identified defendant in the second showup procedure did not testify at the Wade hearing, "the People did not establish that [he] had an independent basis for [his] in-court identification of defendant" ( People v Hill , 53 AD3d 1151, 1151 [4th Dept 2008]), and "there is no evidence upon which this Court can base such a determination" ( People v Walker , 198 AD2d 826, 828 [4th Dept 1993]).

2016As the majority aptly notes, “[u]nlike the typical ‘buy and bust’ operation with a postarrest station house identification, the undercover officer made no effort to ‘assure himself that [the Syracuse Police Department] had arrested the man he intended’ (People v Morales, 37 NY2d 262, 271 [1975]).” It thus follows that the court erred in determining that the identification was' confirmatory as a matter of law, and a Wade hearing should be conducted.

2016As the majority aptly notes, “[u]nlike the typical ‘buy and bust’ operation with a postarrest station house identification, the undercover officer made no effort to ‘assure himself that [the Syracuse Police Department] had arrested the man he intended’ (People v Morales, 37 NY2d 262, 271 [1975]).” It thus follows that the court erred in determining that the identification was' confirmatory as a matter of law, and a Wade hearing should be conducted.

2008Where, as here, the identifying witness testified at the Wade hearing and addressed factors relevant to an independent source determination, this Court may make its own finding based upon the suppression testimony (see People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 417 [1984]; cf. People v Gethers, 86 NY2d 159, 163 [1995]; People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 531-532 [1987]; People v James, 67 NY2d 662, 664 [1986]).

2008Where, as here, the identifying witness testified at the Wade hearing and addressed factors relevant to an independent source determination, this Court may make its own finding based upon the suppression testimony (see People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 417 [1984]; cf. People v Gethers, 86 NY2d 159, 163 [1995]; People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 531-532 [1987]; People v James, 67 NY2d 662, 664 [1986]).

2018The defendant has not demonstrated that because defense counsel failed to move for a Wade hearing ( see United States v Wade , 388 US 218 ), he failed to provide "meaningful [*2]representation" ( People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 ).

2018The defendant has not demonstrated that because defense counsel failed to move for a Wade hearing ( see United States v Wade , 388 US 218 ), he failed to provide "meaningful [*2]representation" ( People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 ).

2006We reach this issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice despite defendant’s failure to seek a midtrial Wade hearing following the victim’s testimony regarding the second photo array, particularly in view of the fact that defendant sought a pretrial Wade hearing (see People v Rahming, 26 NY2d 411, 417 [1970]), and we conclude that defendant is “entitled to a hearing concerning whether the improper [conduct of the detective] ‘affect[ed] the reliability of the [victim’s] in-court identification and render[ed] it inadmissible’ ” (Dodt, 61 NY2d at 417 ).

1999The testimony adduced at the Wade hearing provided ample support for the court’s determination that Cajuste’s observation of defendant during the commission of the crime provided an independent basis for his in-court identification (see, People v Rahming, 26 NY2d 411, 417 ; People v Quinones, 228 AD2d 796, 797 ).

1994Under the circumstances, as presented in the papers both in support of and in opposition to the defendant’s application for a Wade hearing, we find that the undercover officer’s initial viewing of the defendant on April 21, 1990, did not constitute a "police-arranged” identification procedure which necessitated that a Wade hearing be held (see, CPL 710.30; People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184 , cert denied 396 US 1020 ; People v Hunter, 173 AD2d 321, 322 ; cf., People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587 ).

1994Under the circumstances, as presented in the papers both in support of and in opposition to the defendant’s application for a Wade hearing, we find that the undercover officer’s initial viewing of the defendant on April 21, 1990, did not constitute a "police-arranged” identification procedure which necessitated that a Wade hearing be held (see, CPL 710.30; People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184 , cert denied 396 US 1020 ; People v Hunter, 173 AD2d 321, 322 ; cf., People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587 ).

2008Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in refusing to conduct a second Wade hearing, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that such error contributed to the verdict, and thus the error is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Oliver, 34 NY2d 859, 860 [1974] ; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975] ).

1989Although defendant was entitled to a Wade hearing to challenge the other victim’s identification as the product of a suggestive photo array, the error was harmless because there was sufficient evidence, independent of the identification, to establish defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ).

2026The evidence adduced at the Wade hearing ( see United States v Wade , 388 US 218 ) established that the pretrial identification procedures were not unduly suggestive ( see People v Tyme , 222 AD3d 783, 783-784 ; People v Bell , 188 AD3d 904, 905-906 ; People v Hodges , 155 AD3d 767, 767-768 ).

2026The evidence adduced at the Wade hearing ( see United States v Wade , 388 US 218 ) established that the pretrial identification procedures were not unduly suggestive ( see People v Tyme , 222 AD3d 783, 783-784 ; People v Bell , 188 AD3d 904, 905-906 ; People v Hodges , 155 AD3d 767, 767-768 ).

2008Where, as here, the identifying witness testified at the Wade hearing and addressed factors relevant to an independent source determination, this Court may make its own finding based upon the suppression testimony (see People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 417 [1984]; cf. People v Gethers, 86 NY2d 159, 163 [1995]; People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 531-532 [1987]; People v James, 67 NY2d 662, 664 [1986]).

2008Where, as here, the identifying witness testified at the Wade hearing and addressed factors relevant to an independent source determination, this Court may make its own finding based upon the suppression testimony (see People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 417 [1984]; cf. People v Gethers, 86 NY2d 159, 163 [1995]; People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 531-532 [1987]; People v James, 67 NY2d 662, 664 [1986]).

2016Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that the evidence was sufficient to prove *953 the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).

2016Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that the evidence was sufficient to prove *953 the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).

1996We cannot conclude, under these facts, that his alleged failure to seek a Wade hearing constituted a valid basis for a claim of ineffective assistance (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705 ; People v Vann, 216 AD2d 599 , lvs denied 86 NY2d 875 , 87 NY2d 926 ).

1996We cannot conclude, under these facts, that his alleged failure to seek a Wade hearing constituted a valid basis for a claim of ineffective assistance (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705 ; People v Vann, 216 AD2d 599 , lvs denied 86 NY2d 875 , 87 NY2d 926 ).

1994Gissendanner and its numerous progeny hold that no Wade hearing is required for a victim or undercover officer identification which is not the product of a police-arranged presentation of the suspect to the viewer for the specific purpose of establishing the identity of the perpetrator of a crime ( see , People v Gissendanner , 48 NY2d, at 552 , supra; People v Rios , 156 AD2d 397 , lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 923 ; People v Rose , 152 AD2d 924 , lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 852 ; People v Parker , 127 AD2d 614 , lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1008 ; People v Belushi , 114 AD2d 463 , lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 880 ; People v Me

1994Gissendanner and its numerous progeny hold that no Wade hearing is required for a victim or undercover officer identification which is not the product of a police-arranged presentation of the suspect to the viewer for the specific purpose of establishing the identity of the perpetrator of a crime (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d, at 552 , supra; People v Rios, 156 AD2d 397 , lv denied 75 NY2d 923 ; People v Rose, 152 AD2d 924 , lv denied 74 NY2d 852 ; People v Parker, 127 AD2d 614 , lv denied 69 NY2d 1008 ; People v Belushi, 114 AD2d 463 , lv denied 67 NY2d 880 ; People v Medina, 111 AD2d

1995Thus, the defendant’s request for a Wade hearing on the issue of the suggestiveness of the station-house showup was properly denied (see, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 ; People v Morales, 37 NY2d 262 ; see, e.g., People v Craig, 198 AD2d 295 ; People v Liddell, 189 AD2d 896 ; People v Delgado, 186 AD2d 579 ; People v Johnson, 178 AD2d 659 ; People v Gonzalez, 174 AD2d 690 ; cf., People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 452-453 ; People v Gordon, 76 NY2d 595 ).

1995Thus, the defendant’s request for a Wade hearing on the issue of the suggestiveness of the station-house showup was properly denied (see, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 ; People v Morales, 37 NY2d 262 ; see, e.g., People v Craig, 198 AD2d 295 ; People v Liddell, 189 AD2d 896 ; People v Delgado, 186 AD2d 579 ; People v Johnson, 178 AD2d 659 ; People v Gonzalez, 174 AD2d 690 ; cf., People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 452-453 ; People v Gordon, 76 NY2d 595 ).

2023The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony, without granting a Wade hearing, because the victim's identification of defendant in a photo array was a confirmatory identification ( see People v Rodriguez , 79 NY2d 445 [1992]; People v Tas , 51 NY2d 915 [1980]).

2023The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony, without granting a Wade hearing, because the victim's identification of defendant in a photo array was a confirmatory identification ( see People v Rodriguez , 79 NY2d 445 [1992]; People v Tas , 51 NY2d 915 [1980]).

2004By way of contrast, an identification made well after the final undercover buy will necessitate a Wade hearing ( People v Mato , 83 NY2d 406 [station-house identification twenty six days after the transaction, not suggestive, but requires a Wade hearing]; People v Newball , 76 NY2d 587 ["drive-by" identification twenty-eight days after transaction requires a Wade hearing]; People v Di Girolamo , 197 AD2d 531 [station-house identification fifteen days after final transaction not suggestive, but requires a Wade hearing]; but see People v Connor , 137 AD2d 701 , lv denied 71 NY2d 967 [a station-h

2004By way of contrast, an identification made well after the final undercover buy will necessitate a Wade hearing ( People v Mato , 83 NY2d 406 [station-house identification twenty six days after the transaction, not suggestive, but requires a Wade hearing]; People v Newball , 76 NY2d 587 ["drive-by" identification twenty-eight days after transaction requires a Wade hearing]; People v Di Girolamo , 197 AD2d 531 [station-house identification fifteen days after final transaction not suggestive, but requires a Wade hearing]; but see People v Connor , 137 AD2d 701 , lv denied 71 NY2d 967 [a station-h