In re Monet D.
Opinion of the Court
The hearing testimony established the requisite degree of prior familiarity to permit introduction of identification evidence despite the absence of timely statutory notice (see Family Ct Act § 330.2 [2]; CPL 710.30 [1] [b]). The victim had been introduced to appellant, had engaged in conversations with appellant, and knew appellant by her distinctive first name (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]; People v Collins, 60 NY2d 214, 219 [1983]). Appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.