People v. Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d 107

Hernandez was robbed in Oct 2006; initial description described a Hispanic man in his mid-20s with a knife.
Juan Jr. translated; Hernandez failed to identify from an initial photo array; defendant not in that set.
After learning defendant was shot on Elmhurst Ave, detectives assembled an array; Hernandez identified defendant from photo, then later in a lineup.
Defendant was indicted for first-degree robbery, weapon possession, and menacing; suppression motion challenged Hernandez's IDs as unduly suggestive.
Supreme Court denied suppression; verdict returned guilty; Appellate Division affirmed; this Court granted leave to appeal.
Majority holds sufficiency of evidence supports guilt, but identifies unduly suggestive pretrial identification requiring a new trial with an independent source hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ledwon applicability to the case	Ledwon does not control since multiple witnesses testified.	Ledwon governs where inherently contradictory testimony creates no basis for guilt.	Ledwon not controlling; credibility questions go to jury and sufficiency sustained.
Legal sufficiency of the identification-based conviction	Trial evidence, including the victim’s trial testimony, supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Discrepancies undermine reliability; one witness cannot sustain identity.	Evidence legally sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Promptness and scope of suppression hearing	Post-trial familiarity of Juan Jr. with defendant did not warrant reopening.	Juan Jr.’s preexisting familiarity tainted identification; suppression should be reconsidered.	Record supports reopening; suppression should have been reconsidered; new trial with independent source hearing required.
Unduly suggestive pretrial ID and remedy	Suggestiveness not attributable to police; civilian involvement harmless.	Suggestiveness taints identification and requires suppression unless overcome.	Photo array suppression warranted; new trial to be preceded by independent source hearing.
Appropriate remedy for identification error	If suggestive, post-remand independent source hearing can validate identification.	Remedy should not be a new trial on the same evidence.	Order reversed; new trial ordered with independent source hearing.

People v Ledwon, 153 N.Y. 10 (1897) (limits on sufficiency where sole witness provides inherently contradictory testimony)
People v Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80 (2004) (recognizes Ledwon limitation; credibility assessments within weight-of-the-evidence review)
People v Fratello, 92 N.Y.2d 565 (1998) (rejects automatic dismissal for trial–pretrial inconsistency if there is rational basis for credibility determinations)
People v Jackson, 65 N.Y.2d 265 (1985) (no basis for guilt where all evidence comes from single witness with irreconcilable testimony)
People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116 (1977) (weights of evidence review; role of intermediate appellate court in fact findings)
People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633 (2006) (weight-of-the-evidence review and independent credibility determinations by appeallate court)
People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 (2007) (standard for sufficiency review; upward testing of inferences)
People v Young, 7 N.Y.3d 40 (2006) (independent source hearing standard governing suppression outcomes)
People v Marte, 12 N.Y.3d 583 (2009) (interpretation of suggestiveness and translation in identification procedure)
People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327 (1990) (due process and identification procedures)