People v. Peterkin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because the People failed to give defendant notice of their intention to offer evidence of complainant’s identification of defendant at a showup held shortly after the crime (see, CPL 710.30 [1]), that *1051evidence should not have been admitted. Contrary to the contention of the People, the identification of defendant by the complainant was not confirmatory (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 449-450; People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587, 591; see also, People v Dixon, 85 NY2d 218,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. CrimminsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- People v. RodriguezNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. DixonNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- People v. NewballNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ackerson v. City of White PlainsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- Holley v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, NYDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- People v. GrossAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- State v. RodriguezConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- In re Ashley C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.