People of the State of New York v. Jordan Suarez, Defendant. (2026)

The defendant is charged with Burglary in the Second Degree and other offenses in relation to an incident alleged to have occurred on January 4, 2025. The defense moves to suppress identification evidence. This court conducted a Rodriguez hearing on July 14 and August 13, 2026. The People presented two witnesses: Detective Michael Kennedy and Police Officer Kyriakos Frantzeskakis. The defendant did not present any witnesses. After the testimony was concluded, the court heard oral arguments from both sides.

The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

Police Officer Kyriakos Frantzeskakis

Police Officer Kyriakos Frantzeskakis has been employed by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for three and a half years and is currently assigned to the 61st Precinct (8/13/26 tr at 5).

Officer Frantzeskakis testified credibly that on January 4, 2025, at approximately 2:40 p.m., he responded to a radio dispatch of a burglary in progress on Brigham Street in Kings County (8/13/26 tr at 5-6, 12). The officer arrived approximately five or six minutes after receiving the radio call (id. at 12). By that time, the perpetrator was no longer present on scene (id.).

A copy of the officer's body-worn camera (BWC) footage depicting his interactions with the complainant on January 4, 2025, was admitted into evidence as People's Exhibit 2 (8/13/26 tr at 10).

Upon the officer's arrival on scene, the complainant approached the officer and stated that "somebody had broken into his home and that he saw the person and recognized him" (8/13/26 tr at 6, 12). The complainant provided "the street name of Face and then Jordan" and described the perpetrator as someone with long hair and scars on his face (id. at 6, 17-18; People's Exhibit 2 at 4:15-4:27). The complainant also stated that Jordan was on parole and that in the past he had purchased marihuana from Jordan (8/13/26 tr at 6, 16-17).

The complainant explained further that he has lived in that apartment for his "entire life" and knew Jordan as his marihuana dealer (People's Exhibit 2 at 14:00-14:38). The complainant recounted that he first met Jordan one day while walking on the street and "smoking a spliff" (see (id. at 14:10-14:22). That day, Jordan approached him and stated, "yo, check out this work" (id. at 14:10-14:22). The complainant considered it to be "pretty good stuff" and agreed to purchase (id. at 14:20-14:25). He recalled that it was warm out and Jordan used to drive a car, which the complainant referred to as a "sling shot" (id. at 14:06-14:12). The complainant also remembered that on some prior occasion Jordan was trying to sell him marihuana and "he had like pounds" (id. at 4:35-4:46). Although the complainant did not know where Jordan lived, he stated that Jordan spent time "in the middle of the block" at a friend's house who Jordan refers to as a cousin (id. at 4:30-4:35). Prior to seeing Jordan in his apartment that day, the complainant had last spoken to Jordan "weeks" ago (id. at 4:44-4:50).

While the police remained at the scene, the complainant initiated a FaceTime call with Jordan, captured a screenshot of Jordan's face, and showed it to Officer Frantzeskakis (8/13/26 tr at 6-7). Another officer, Officer Brown, then showed the complainant two photos in succession and asked whether he recognized either person (id. at 7-8, 15-16, 18-19). The complainant answered "no" as to the individual in the first photo, who was named Jordan but not Jordan Suarez (id. at 7, 15). Upon viewing the second photo, which depicted Jordan Suarez, the complainant identified him as "the person that was in his home" (id. at 7-9). Later, the sergeant on scene again displayed the photograph of Jordan to the complainant and asked, "This is definitely him?" The complainant responded, "A [sic] hundred percent, a [sic] hundred percent" (People's Exhibit 2 at 12:21-12:35). When the sergeant further asked, "You're one hundred percent sure this is the individual?" the complainant responded, "On my father's grave, sir, that is who I saw" (id.).

The complainant also indicated that, while police were still on scene, he received a text from Jordan stating, in sum and substance, "What are you talking about? You want me to beat somebody up for $400, I am not that type of person" (People's Exhibit 2 at 12:56-13:05).

Other than speaking to Detective Kennedy and writing the complaint report, Officer Frantzeskakis had no further involvement in the case (8/13/26 tr at 9).

Detective Michael Kennedy

Detective Michael Kennedy has been employed by the NYPD for 11½ years and has been a detective for almost 4 years (7/14/26 tr at 7-8).

Detective Kennedy testified credibly that on January 4, 2025, he became involved as the lead investigator of an alleged burglary on Brigham Street in Kings County that occurred on that same date at approximately 2:40 p.m. (7/14/26 tr at 8-9). As part of his investigation, the detective interviewed the complainant in the 61st Precinct Detective Squad interview room (id. at 9). The complainant reported that "an individual named Jordan broke into his house and removed property and US currency" (id. at 9). The complainant further stated that he had known the individual for a few months and interacted with him "more than four times" (id. at 10, 15-16, 18). The complainant did not know the defendant's last name but provided the first name Jordan and the "street name" Face (id. at 16-17).

Next, the detective spoke with an officer who initially responded on scene, Police Officer Frantzeskakis (7/14/26 tr at 10). Officer Frantzeskakis provided the detective with "a name and date of birth for the person that allegedly committed the crime" (7/14/26 tr at 10). Detective Kennedy entered that information "into [the] DOS system, got back a NYSID, and entered that NYSID into [the] Photo Manager system to obtain a photo of the person regarding that pedigree" (id.). The detective then displayed the photo to the complainant and asked if he recognized the individual, to which the complainant responded "yes, that's Jordan" (id. at 10-11). The photo was admitted into evidence as People's Exhibit 1 (id. at 12). The detective further learned during his investigation that Jordan Suarez was "actively on parole" (id. at 14).

Following the identification procedure, Detective Kennedy issued an I-card for Jordan Suarez (7/14/26 tr at 13). On January 16, 2025, the detective arrested Jordan Suarez, whom he identified as the defendant herein (id.). At the time of the arrest, the detective observed that the defendant had a scar on his face (id. at 14).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

At a Rodriguez hearing, the People have the initial burden to prove that the identification procedure was "merely confirmatory." To meet their burden of showing that an identification is "merely confirmatory", the People must show that the witness and the defendant are known to one another, or, if no relationship exists, that the witness "knows [the] defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion" (People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 452 [1992]; see People v Coleman, 306 AD2d 549, 550 [3d Dept 2003]). To determine whether an identification is confirmatory, the court may consider various factors, including the number of times the witness viewed the defendant prior to the crime, the duration and nature of the encounters, the setting of the encounters, the period over which the viewings occurred, the time elapsed between the crime and any previous viewings, and whether the two had any conversations (Rodriguez, 79 NY2d at 451; People v Sanchez, 75 AD3d 911, 912 [3rd Dept 2010]).

A court's finding that an identification is confirmatory is equivalent to the conclusion that, "as a matter of law, the witness is so familiar with the defendant that there is 'little to no risk' that police suggestion could lead to misidentification" (Rodriguez, 79 NY2d at 450). The mere labeling of an identification as "confirmatory" does not make it so (see People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427, 432 [2006], citing People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 923 [1989]; see also People v Mato, 83 NY2d 406, 410-411 [1994]).

At issue in this case is the single photograph pretrial identification of the defendant by the complainant on January 4, 2025. The People submit that the identification is confirmatory due to the complainant's purported familiarity with the defendant.

The People, through the testimony of two police witnesses, established facts regarding the alleged prior relationship between the defendant and the complainant (see People v Jacobs, 65 AD3d 594, 595 [2d Dept 2009] [police officer hearsay testimony sufficient to establish familiarity between the defendant and the complainant]; see also People v Colon, 196 AD3d 1043, 1045 [4th Dept 2021] [testimony of a police detective established familiarity]; People v Waterman, 56 AD3d 329, 329 [1st Dept 2008] [prosecution has no obligation to call identifying witness at suppression hearing to establish prior familiarity]). The People elicited testimony that the complainant knew the defendant for a few months and had interacted with him on at least four occasions. Shortly after the incident, the complainant named the defendant by first name and a nickname, and reported to police a distinctive scar on the defendant's face, his parole status, friends that lived in the neighborhood, and the type of vehicle the defendant drove during warm months (see People v Legette, 256 AD2d 593, 594 [2d Dept 1998] [finding it significant to familiarity issue that "the victim identified the defendant by his nickname immediately after the shooting"]). The complainant also had the defendant's telephone number saved, initiated a video call to the defendant in the officers' presence, and received a text message purportedly from the defendant immediately after the call.

Although the complainant had only known the defendant for a few months and there was no evidence regarding the exact duration of the encounters, the testimony established that the dealings between the two were not merely fleeting encounters or distant observations. The complainant had interacted with the defendant more than four times, had purchased marihuana from him, and recalled the circumstances of their initial meeting and conversation (see People v Smith, 137 AD3d 1323, 1326 [3d Dept 2016] [sufficient familiarity where witness had known defendant for approximately six weeks, interacted with him "several" times during that period, and drove other people to defendant's location to buy drugs on approximately four occasions]). The complainant knew the defendant by both his first name and street name, knew that he was on parole, knew the distinctive "sling shot" vehicle that the defendant drove, and accurately described the defendant's long hair and facial scarring before viewing any photograph provided by police (see People v Walker, 289 AD2d 53 [1st Dept 2001] ["although the witness did not know defendant by name, [sufficient familiarity established where] he had seen him approximately five times before the incident and had noticed his distinctive eyes and gait"]).

The fact that the complainant only provided the nickname, "Face," and first name, "Jordan," and did not know or was unable to provide a surname for the defendant is not dispositive on the issue of familiarity (see People v Almonte, 181 AD2d 736, 736 [2d Dept 1992] [even though officer did not know the defendant's name, officer and defendant sufficiently familiar where officer worked in the neighborhood for four months and observed defendant on the same corner on numerous occasions]; see also People v Cotto, 222 AD2d 345, 345 [1st Dept 1995] [parties were well known to each other where witness "had seen the killer in the neighborhood on numerous occasions, that he had even visited her apartment prior to the shooting, and that she would be able to identify him from a photograph although she did not know his proper name"]; People v Cherny, 179 AD2d 938, 938 [3d Dept 1992] [although victims did not know defendant by name, their familiarity with defendant was established through testimony that "defendant had lived in the victims' neighborhood for a period of years and that the victims had seen defendant on a number of prior occasions"]).

Particularly significant here is the quality of the details provided by the complainant. The complainant provided a detailed account of the first time that he met the defendant in the neighborhood and the substance of the conversation between the two (see Cherny, 179 AD2d at 938). The complainant also demonstrated an ability to contact the defendant directly by FaceTime and captured a screenshot of the person he knew as Jordan, and displayed that image to the officers before the police-arranged viewings. He also reported receiving a contemporaneous text from the defendant after the FaceTime call. The facts convincedly established that the complainant "needed no one to remember" Jordan (People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286, 295 [1994]).

Moreover, the complainant, not the police, directed the investigation toward a particular individual based upon his face-to-face encounter during the alleged burglary. The police did not suggest a name to the complainant or furnish him with the first image of the alleged perpetrator. Rather, the complainant supplied the first name "Jordan," obtained an initial photo of Jordan from a FaceTime call, and provided specific information about the perpetrator's appearance and criminal history (see People v Archie, 200 AD2d 676, 676 [2d Dept 1994] [sufficient familiarity where "complainant told the police immediately following the robbery that he knew the defendant from the neighborhood, gave a description that closely matched the defendant's actual appearance, and indicated that he and the defendant had a mutual acquaintance"]). Additionally, when first shown a photograph of another individual named "Jordan," the complainant unequivocally rejected that person as the perpetrator. When shown the second photograph depicting the defendant, the complainant confidently identified him as the culprit. The complainant's ability to distinguish between the individuals sharing the same first name further demonstrates that any resulting identification rested on the complainant's prior interactions and personal observations rather than undue police suggestion.

After considering the Rodriguez factors enumerated above, this court finds that the People have met their burden of establishing that the complainant was sufficiently familiar with the defendant as to deem the January 4, 2025 single photograph identification of the defendant merely confirmatory.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the defendant's motion to suppress the pretrial identification of the defendant is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

Dated: August 25, 2026

Brooklyn, New York

HON. JOANNE D. QUIÑONES, J.S.C.

Joanne D. Quiñones, J.