New York Court of Appeals, 1990

People v. Peterkin

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 1, 1990

75 N.Y.2d 985; 556 N.E.2d 1068; 557 N.Y.S.2d 261; 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 964

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Corchado v. Rabideau (District Court, W.D. New York 2008)
People v. Vanness (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Vanness (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Brock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Abrew (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Sanchez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
In re Bernard C. (NYC Family Court 1996)
People v. Granville (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Zhang Wan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Wilson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Serrano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Sanchez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Harrell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Villanova (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Morris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Page (New York Supreme Court 1992)
People v. Black (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Byas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Maldonado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Griffin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Priester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Bobo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the hearing court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to call the complainant at the Wade hearing (United States v Wade, 388 US 218). A defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at the Wade hearing absent some indicia of the suggestiveness of the identification procedure employed (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336-338). Defendant argues, however, that he has a right to call the complainant where there has been a showup, an inherently suggestive identification procedure (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523). This argument has no application where, as here, the defendant does not dispute that the showup was made promptly and at the scene of the crime (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023). Nor has he claimed that the complainant’s testimony would have differed in any respect from that offered by the People’s witnesses. In these circumstances, defendant is not entitled to call the complainant at the hearing (People v Chipp, supra).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

*987Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.