People v. Esquiled
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. McDonald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- People v. Umoja (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re Felix D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant’s claim that the trial court should have reopened the pretrial Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218) based upon the testimony elicited during the trial is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move for that relief (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feinsod, 278 AD2d 335, 336; People v Johnson, 262 AD2d 155; People v Meyer, 255 AD2d 272). The defendant’s attempt to use the trial testimony to challenge the pretrial suppression ruling is impermissible (see People v Polk, 284 AD2d 416, 417; People v Feinsod, supra; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d 467, 468).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.