Assuming, as the People conceded at the suppression hearing, that they were required to give CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice of the undercover officer's confirmatory drive-by identification of defendant, their failure to do so did not also require suppression of the undercover officer's subsequent station house identification, for which the People did give notice, or his in-court identification, since notice of the station house identification gave defendant ample opportunity to...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
