People v. Lago
| Decision Date | 10 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2007-01725. |
| Citation | 60 A.D.3d 784,875 N.Y.S.2d 178,2009 NY Slip Op 01819 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH LAGO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the photo array identification procedure was unduly suggestive is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed at the Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]) to raise the specific grounds upon which he now challenges the procedure (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Warren, 50 AD3d 706 [2008]). In any event, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the various persons depicted in the computer-generated photo array were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant such that the pretrial identification procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v Howard, 50 AD3d 823 [2008]; People v Ragunauth, 24 AD3d 472 [2005]). Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the admission of testimony at trial regarding the photo array identification procedure did not deny him a fair trial since defense counsel opened the door to the issue as a trial tactic during his opening statement (see People v Vasquez, 33 AD3d 636 [2006]; People v Norris, 5 AD3d 796 [2004]; People v Martinez, 1 AD3d 611 [2003]).
The defendant's claim that the People violated their disclosure obligations under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]) is based on factual assertions outside the record and, thus, is not reviewable on this appeal (see People v Purdie, 50 AD3d 1065 [2008]; People v Williams, 43 AD3d 729 [2007]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Joseph
...little likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification based on particular characteristics (see People v. Lago, 60 A.D.3d 784, 785, 875 N.Y.S.2d 178 ; People v. Ragunauth, 24 A.D.3d 472, 805 N.Y.S.2d 654 ; People v. Galletti, 239 A.D.2d 598, 658 N.Y.S.2d 80 ). There is......
-
People v. Martin
...which he now challenges the procedure ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Fields, 66 A.D.3d 799, 799, 887 N.Y.S.2d 182;People v. Lago, 60 A.D.3d 784, 784–785, 875 N.Y.S.2d 178). In any event, the People established in the first instance that the lineup procedure was not improper, and the defendan......
-
People v. Jones
...861, 862, 832 N.Y.S.2d 466, 864 N.E.2d 596 ), a defendant may open the door to evidence of such an identification (see People v. Lago, 60 A.D.3d 784, 784, 875 N.Y.S.2d 178, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 746, 886 N.Y.S.2d 100, 914 N.E.2d 1018 ; People v. Carvalho, 60 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 876 N.Y.S.2d 2......
-
People v. Moshier
...his current arguments at the suppression hearing ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Acevedo, 84 A.D.3d 1390, 925 N.Y.S.2d 523;People v. Lago, 60 A.D.3d 784, 875 N.Y.S.2d 178;People v. Carter, 44 A.D.3d 677, 843 N.Y.S.2d 381). In any event, the contentions are without merit ( see People v. Guitie......