green
Positive treatment
6.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Kevin Fisher
As with the unilateral theory of criminal liability for conspiracy, the legal status of the assisted person—the principal in this case—is immaterial to defendant’s criminal liability for hindering prosecution (People v Schwimmer, 47 NY2d 1004, 1005 [1979]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hilliard
Defendant, as the originator of the criminal plan, clearly knew the identity of the intended robbery victim and intended and understood that he had agreed with the others to commit the robbery of the victim; defendant had the requisite mens rea for the crime of conspiracy and it is irrelevant, under the unilateral approach to conspiracy adopted in this state, whether the other coconspirators knew the intended victim’s identity from the outset or when, if ever, there was a “meeting of the minds” on that point (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 149 [2005]; People v Schwimmer, 66 AD2d 91, 95-…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Caban
This is particularly so . . . where ... it appears that the individual defendant is the originator of the criminal plan and the one most anxious to see the successful completion of the criminal objective” (People v Schwimmer, 66 AD2d 91, 95-96 [2d Dept 1978], affd for reasons stated in op below 47 NY2d 1004, 1005 [1979]). *150 Similarly, Torres’s statement that he would provide the gun for a later homicide—even if ultimately untrue—was admissible for the fact that it was said, inasmuch as its utterance provided evidence of Torres’s unlawful agreement with defendant and Garcia.
examined
Cited "see"
Haji v. Miller
(3×)
See People v. Schwimmer, 47 N.Y.2d 1004 , 420 N.Y.S.2d 218 , 394 N.E.2d 288 (1979) (affirming conviction for conspiracy where the only two persons with whom defendant entered into agreement were the undercover and the confidential informant).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Berkowitz
Insofar as defendant’s argument is premised upon the belief that there must exist at least two criminally culpable persons for there to be a conspiracy, it must be rejected as ah attempt to return to the traditional "bilateral” theory of conspiracy, which is no longer the law in this State as a result of the Legislature’s decision to adopt a "unilateral” theory of liability for conspiracy (Penal Law, § 105.30; see People v Schwimmer, 47 NY2d 1004 , aifg 66 AD2d 91 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Colon
The New York Appellate Division disagreed and adopted the “ ‘unilateral approach’ exemplified by the [revised] Model Penal Code (10 Uniform Laws Ann., §§ 5.03, 5.04).” Id.; see also People v. Villetto, 47 N.Y.2d 1006 , 394 N.E.2d 288 , 420 N.Y.S.2d 219 (1979); People v. Teeter, 47 N.Y.2d 1002 , 394 N.E.2d 286 , 420 N.Y.S.2d 217 (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Leon Schwimmer
v.
Leon Schwimmer
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 10, 1979.
394 N.E.2d 288
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Sanford S. Lurie for appellant., Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Lionel René Saporta of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 32 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Rabin (66 AD2d 91) to which we add only that there cannot be any question concerning the intention of the Legislature by section 105.30 of the Penal Law to adopt the unilateral rather than the bilateral approach to conspiracy in light of the analogous statutory provisions contained in article 100 (criminal solicitation), article 110 (attempt), and article 115 (criminal facilitation) as well as article 105 (conspiracy) of the Penal Law.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.