People v. Shofkom, 922 N.E.2d 898 (NY 2010). · Go Syfert
People v. Shofkom, 922 N.E.2d 898 (NY 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (38 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Peart (nyappdiv, 2016-07-21)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" People v. Peart
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Since a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we “must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Shofkom, 63 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 799 [2009], appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 933 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" CULLEN, WILLIAM, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
We reject defendant’s contention with respect to the remaining alleged errors, and we conclude that the challenged evidence was properly admitted because it placed the “ ‘charged conduct in context’ ” and “ ‘provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship’ between defendant and the victim” (People v Leeson, 12 NY3d 823, 827 , quoting People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16, 19 ; see People v Shofkom, 63 AD3d 1286, 1287 , lv denied 13 NY3d 799 , appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 933 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Cullen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
We reject defendant’s contention with respect to the remaining alleged errors, and we conclude that the challenged evidence was properly admitted because it placed the “ ‘charged conduct in context’ ” and “ ‘provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship’ between defendant and the victim” (People v Leeson, 12 NY3d 823, 827 [2009], quoting People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16, 19 [2009]; see People v Shofkom, 63 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 799 [2009], appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 933 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Cullen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
We reject defendant’s contention with respect to the remaining alleged errors, and we conclude that the challenged evidence was properly admitted because it placed the “ ‘charged conduct in context’ ” and “ ‘provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship’ between defendant and the victim” (People v Leeson, 12 NY3d 823, 827 [2009], quoting People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16, 19 [2009]; see People v Shofkom, 63 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 799 [2009], appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 933 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" Krys v. Aaron (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 13 N.Y.3d 933 , 922 N.E.2d 898 , 895 N.Y.S.2d 309 (2010).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Refco Inc. Securities Litigation (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 13 N.Y.3d 933 , 922 N.E.2d 898 , 895 N.Y.S.2d 309 (2010).
discussed Cited "see" August Bohl Contracting Co. v. L.A. Swyer Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
However, the relation back doctrine does not preserve an untimely claim for affirmative relief in an amended pleading where “the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” (CPLR 203 [f]; see B.B.C.F.D., S.A. v Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 62 AD3d 425, 426 [2009], lv dismissed 13 NY3d 933 [2010]; United States Fid. & Guar.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Holtslander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: compare · confidence low
The proffered Molineux evidence was not necessary to resolve any ambiguity as to count 1, and thus was beyond the Molineux exception for background information as provided by County Court in its ruling ( see People v Leonard , 29 NY3d 1, 7-8 [2017]; People v Resek , 3 NY3d at 390 ; People v Lewis , 69 NY2d 321, 327 [1987]; compare People v Shofkom , 63 AD3d 1286, 1287-1288 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 799 [2009], appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 933 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Delbert L. Shofkom, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 19, 2010.
922 N.E.2d 898
Published

[*934] Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no civil appeal lies from the order of the Appellate Division entered in this criminal proceeding (see NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5601; CPL 450.90).