Legal Opinion

People v. Laing

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 20, 1992PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bellacosa, J.

In both of these cases, the People claim that CPL 450.20 (8) authorizes them to appeal to the Appellate Division from trial orders precluding the introduction of identification evidence for failure to comply with CPL 710.30’s timely notice provision. We affirm the orders of the Appellate Division dismissing the People’s appeals to that court (People v Laing, 168 AD2d 635; People v Wade, 170 AD2d 468), because CPL 710.30 orders are not among the enumerated authorizations in CPL 450.20 and because there is no interpretative alternative to that exclusive route…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Holtzman v. GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. KingNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. People v. O'DohertyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. People v. WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. People v. DouglassNew York Court of Appeals · 1983

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. People v. StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. People v. LopezNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. People v. EvansNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. People v. PaganNew York Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. People v. HernandezNew York Court of Appeals · 2002

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API