People v. Phillip W., 47 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Phillip W., 47 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Swartz (nyappdiv, 2025-02-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Swartz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we conclude that it was error to preclude defendant from exercizing his right to confront victim 2 about their prior statement; the court could have crafted limitations to prevent the disclosure of unduly prejudicial information upon such questioning ( see People v Hanley , 5 NY3d 108, 114-115 [2005]; People v Williams , 47 AD2d 963, 963 [2d Dept 1975]; compare People v Mannix , 302 AD2d 297, 298 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 622 [2003]; see generally People v Robinson , 216 AD3d 1252 , 1253 [3d Dept 2023]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Phillip W. (Anonymous) and Henry R. (Anonymous)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 28, 1975.
47 A.D.2d 963
Published

Appeal by defendants, as limited by their brief, from two sentences (one as to each defendant) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both imposed July 12, 1973, adjudicating each of them a youthful offender, upon their guilty pleas, and imposing sentence. Sentences modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing them to the time already served. As so modified, sentences affirmed. The sentences were excessive to the extent indicated herein. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, concur.