Legal Opinion
People v. Broome
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 2, 1989PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant is entitled to a new trial because the complainant’s identification testimony should have been precluded. Defendant moved to preclude identification testimony because he had not been served with a written notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b). The Judge who heard that motion (Burke, J.) ruled that the People would be precluded from introducing identification evidence because they had failed to serve the required notice. Two days before trial, the Trial Judge (Bergin, J.) conducted a Wade hearing over…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. BernierNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- People v. McMullinNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. FinleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- People v. FinleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- People v. JohnsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
3Cited by8 opinions
- People v. EvansNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- People v. BradleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- People v. NenniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- People v. Harris, New York County Courts2007
- People v. GreeneCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.