Court Opinion

ID: 9822808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:26:55.677057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:10.662102
License: Public Domain

Roman, J.,
dissents, and votes to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: I disagree with the majority’s determination that the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress testimony regarding Ronald Seeram’s photographic and lineup identifications, and Jeff Clyne’s photographic *1031identification. For the reasons set forth below, I find that the People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of undue suggestiveness with respect to these procedures, and the defendant failed to prove that the procedures were unduly suggestive. Additionally, I disagree with the majority that the court improperly limited the defendant’s cross-examination of Detective Michael McDermott.
With respect to the People’s failure to preserve the photographic array viewed by Seeram, I agree that such failure gives rise to a presumption of suggestiveness with respect to that photographic identification procedure (see People v Bridges, 63 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; People v Wedgeworth, 156 AD2d 529, 529 [1989]). However, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the People presented sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption (see People v Reaves, 112 AD3d 746, 747 [2013]; People v Bridges, 63 AD3d at 753). At the Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]), McDermott testified that on January 8, 2006, Clyne and Seeram were at opposite sides of one room as they viewed photographs from the police department’s photo manager system, which generated six photographs at a time based on the criteria entered into the computer system. McDermott testified that the description entered into the computer viewed by Clyne was a male black, 18 to 25 years old, weighing 130 to 160 pounds, and that the description entered into Seeram’s computer was a male black, 18 to 26 years old, weighing 130 to 165 pounds. McDermott further testified that Clyne viewed approximately 54 pages, or 324 photographs, before identifying the defendant, while Seeram viewed approximately 32 pages, or 192 photographs, before he identified the defendant.
This Court has consistently recognized that where, as here, “a photographic identification procedure involves showing a witness a preexisting file consisting of a large number of photographs, the ‘sheer volume and scope of [the] procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness’ ” (People v Mason, 138 AD2d 411, 412 [1988], quoting People v Jerome, 111 AD2d 874, 874 [1985]; see People v Fields, 66 AD3d 799, 799 [2009]; People v Ashby, 289 AD2d 588, 588 [2001]; People v Burgos, 204 AD2d 344, 345 [1994]; People v Faulk, 192 AD2d 717, 717 [1993]; People v Stokes, 139 AD2d 785, 785 [1988]; People v Ludwigsen, 128 AD2d 810, 810 [1987]). The majority’s reliance on People v Dobbins (112 AD3d 735 [2013]) is misplaced. There, this Court held that the People’s failure to preserve the original printout of a photographic array gave rise *1032to a presumption of suggestiveness, which the People failed to rebut, inasmuch as the detective testifying at the suppression hearing “did not memorialize and could not recall the specific information that he entered into the photo manager system which generated the photographic array, did not memorialize and could not recall how many photographs the complainant viewed, and did not memorialize and could not recall for how long the complainant was viewing photographs” {id. at 736). Here, by contrast, McDermott specifically testified regarding the criteria that was entered into the computer system, the number of photographs that Clyne and Seeram viewed prior to making an identification, and the time frame in which they viewed the photographs.
Furthermore, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the People did not meet their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of undue suggestiveness as to Clyne’s photographic identification because they did not call Detective Van Pelt, who also participated in the photographic identification procedures, as a witness (see People v Fields, 66 AD3d at 799). In any event, that contention, and the defendant’s further claim that the People did not meet their initial burden with respect to Seeram’s lineup identification because the detective who conducted that procedure was not called as witness, are without merit.
At the hearing, McDermott testified that during the photographic identification procedures, Clyne and Seeram were seated on opposite sides of the same room, approximately 20 feet apart from each other. McDermott testified that he went back and forth to consult with his colleague, Van Pelt, who primarily stayed with Clyne, while McDermott primarily stayed with Seeram. McDermott further testified that Clyne and Seeram did not communicate with each other while viewing the photographs, and that he instructed both of them to let him know if they made an identification. Additionally, as set forth above, McDermott testified concerning the specific information that was entered into the photo manager system, and the number of photographs Clyne and Seeram each viewed. Thus, the instant case is distinguishable from People v Coleman (73 AD3d 1200 [2010]), where the People offered only the testimony of a detective who was not present during a prior photographic array identification procedure, and thus, “could not answer any questions as to what, if anything, was said before or during the identification procedure, or provide any details as to the attendant circumstances” {id. at 1203).
*1033As to the lineup, Detective Carlo D’Ambrosi testified that he picked up both Clyne and Seeram, and transported them to the precinct station house. Upon arrival, he escorted them to the Community Affairs office, and instructed them not to talk to each other. D’Ambrosi testified that he separated Clyne and Seeram, and that he stayed with them while the lineup was being prepared. D’Ambrosi testified that Seeram was escorted to the viewing room by Detective Routledge while D’Ambrosi stayed with Clyne. Referring to the lineup report which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, D’Ambrosi testified that Seeram identified the defendant from the lineup. Specifically, the lineup report provides that when Seeram was asked where he recognized the defendant from, he replied, “It’s number 5 he was the first guy in.” Additionally, the lineup report, which lists each participant’s age, height, and weight, reflects that the participants were of relatively similar appearance (see People v Ortiz, 61 AD3d 1003, 1003 [2009]; People v Matthews, 57 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2008]; People v Jean-Baptiste, 57 AD3d 566, 567 [2008]).
Based on the foregoing, I find that the People presented sufficient evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the viewing of the photographs and the lineup, and met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of suggestiveness of the subject pretrial identification procedures. The burden then shifted to the defendant, who failed to satisfy his ultimate burden of proving that the identification procedures were unduly suggestive. The defendant’s contention that Clyne and Seeram could have communicated with each other while at the precinct station house during the photographic identification procedure, or in the Community Affairs office prior to viewing the lineup, is purely speculative and unsupported by the hearing record (see People v Reyes, 60 AD3d 873, 874 [2009]; People v Celestin, 231 AD2d 736, 736 [1996]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress testimony regarding Seeram’s and Clyne’s photographic identifications, and Seeram’s lineup identification.
Further, contrary to the majority’s determination, I find that the Supreme Court did not improperly limit the defendant’s cross-examination of McDermott concerning the photographic array dated December 10, 2005. Following an informal hearing, the court credited McDermott’s testimony that he had made the handwritten notations on the array, and that this array was never shown to Clyne or Seeram (see generally People v Fletcher, 130 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2015], lv granted 26 NY3d *10341044 [2015]). Finally, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to reopen the Wade hearing based on the disclosure of this array, which did not include a photograph of the defendant, since the defendant failed to demonstrate that the new facts proffered in support of his motion were likely to affect the original determination (see People v Guerrier, 129 AD3d 863, 863 [2015]; People v Moore, 118 AD3d 916, 918 [2014]).
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment.