In re Richard M.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*850The appellant contends that the expert witness in fingerprint comparison and identification did not give adequate factual detail to support his conclusion that three latent fingerprints left at the scene of the burglary matched known fingerprints of the appellant. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the opinion of the expert witness was supported by a sufficient factual basis establishing that an accepted methodology was appropriately employed (see People v Jones, 73 NY2d 427, 430 [1989]; People v Garcia, 299 AD2d 493 [2002]; see generally Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 447 [2006]).
2Cases cited16 opinions
- People v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. DanielsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- People v. RomeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- People v. MateoNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. JacksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. NelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- People v. JacksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. VasquezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. JacksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.