In re Jamar S.

The victim’s out-of-court identification of respondent, given as evidence in chief pursuant to Family Court Act § 343.3, should have been the subject of a Wade hearing, since it took place while the victim and police were canvassing the crime area, and the presentment agency did not establish, as a matter of law, that the identification was free from the risk of police suggestion (People v Dixon, 85 NY2d 218, 220). The presentment agency’s argument that Dixon should not be applied retroactively is contrary to its own previously stated position in this regard (Matter of Jonitta C., 214 AD2d…