Legal Opinion

People v. Polite

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 24, 1996PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting third-party testimony that the complainant identified the defendant at the time of his arrest, 10 minutes after the crime, where the complainant was unable to positively identify the defendant at trial as one of the men who robbed him.

CPL 60.25 allows third-party testimony where a witness has validly identified a defendant on a prior occasion and is unable to make an identification at trial because of a lack of a present *706recollection (see, People v Hernandez, 154 AD2d 197; People v Hudson, 201 AD2d 503).…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. HernandezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  2. People v. HudsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. BallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API