green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ashby
See People v. Bowen, 17 App. Div. 3d 1054, 1055, 794 N.Y.S.2d 203 , appeal denied, 5 N.Y.3d 759 , 834 N.E.2d 1264 , 801 N.Y.S.2d 254 (2005); People v. Konikov, 160 App. Div. 2d 146, 152–53, 559 N.Y.S.2d 901 , appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 941 , 564 N.E.2d 680 , 563 N.Y.S.2d 70 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Weatherspoon
Here, defendant’s assertion that counsel should have more vigorously supported his preindictment delay motion cannot serve as a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance, as ineffective assistance does not result from counsel’s failure to “make [or more enthusiastically support] a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d at 152 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Campbell, 17 AD3d 925, 926 [2005], Iv denied 5 NY3d 760 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Johnson
As to counsel's failure to object to the specificity of the indictment, our review satisfies us that the indictment "is valid on its face and does not suffer from the lack of specificity charged by defendant" when considering the nature of the offenses and the victims' ages ( People v Addison , 219 AD2d 782, 783 [3d Dept 1995]; see People v Adams , 59 AD3d 928 , 929 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 813 [2009]; see also People v Campbell , 17 AD3d 925, 926-927 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 760 [2005]). [FN3] Accordingly, the failure to move for such relief does not establish that counsel w…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Johnson
As to counsel's failure to object to the specificity of the indictment, our review satisfies us that the indictment "is valid on its face and does not suffer from the lack of specificity charged by defendant" when considering the nature of the offenses and the victims' ages ( People v Addison , 219 AD2d 782, 783 [3d Dept 1995]; see People v Adams , 59 AD3d 928 , 929 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 813 [2009]; see also People v Campbell , 17 AD3d 925, 926-927 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 760 [2005]). [FN3] Accordingly, the failure to move for such relief does not establish that counsel w…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Letizia
“Even assuming, arguendo, that the requested item[ ] w[as] subjected to DNA testing and that such testing revealed DNA that did not belong to . . . defendant, we . . . conclude that there . . . would be no reasonable probability that defendant would have received a more favorable verdict had those test results been introduced at trial” (People v Swift, 108 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1077 [2013]; see People v Kaminski, 61 AD3d 1113, 1116 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 917 [2009]; People v Sterling, 37 AD3d 1158, 1158 [2007]; see also People v Burr, 17 AD3d 1131, 1132 [2005], lv de…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Letizia
“Even assuming, arguendo, that the requested item[ ] w[as] subjected to DNA testing and that such testing revealed DNA that did not belong to . . . defendant, we . . . conclude that there . . . would be no reasonable probability that defendant would have received a more favorable verdict had those test results been introduced at trial” (People v Swift, 108 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1077 [2013]; see People v Kaminski, 61 AD3d 1113, 1116 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 917 [2009]; People v Sterling, 37 AD3d 1158, 1158 [2007]; see also People v Burr, 17 AD3d 1131, 1132 [2005], lv de…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
LETIZIA, SALVATORE, PEOPLE v
“Even assuming, arguendo, that the requested item[] w[as] subjected to DNA testing and that such testing revealed DNA that did not belong to . . . defendant, we . . . conclude that there . . . would be no reasonable probability that defendant would have received a more favorable -2- 468 KA 14-00233 verdict had those test results been introduced at trial” (People v Swift, 108 AD3d 1060, 1061 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1077 ; see People v Kaminski, 61 AD3d 1113, 1116 , lv denied 12 NY3d 917 ; People v Sterling, 37 AD3d 1158, 1158 ; see also People v Burr, 17 AD3d 1131, 1132 , lv denied 5 NY3d 760 ,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Swift
We conclude that the court properly denied that part of the motion seeking testing with respect to those items “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been tested and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant” (People v Sterling, 37 AD3d 1158, 1158 [2007]; see People v Kaminski, 61 AD3d 1113, 1116 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 917 [2009]; see also People v Burr, 17 AD3d 1131, 1132 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 760 [2005], lv denied upon reconsideration 5 NY3d 804 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Swift
We conclude that the court properly denied that part of the motion seeking testing with respect to those items “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been tested and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant” (People v Sterling, 37 AD3d 1158, 1158 [2007]; see People v Kaminski, 61 AD3d 1113, 1116 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 917 [2009]; see also People v Burr, 17 AD3d 1131, 1132 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 760 [2005], lv denied upon reconsideration 5 NY3d 804 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SWIFT, SAMMY, PEOPLE v
We conclude that the court properly denied that part of the motion seeking testing with respect to those items “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been tested and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant” (People v Sterling, 37 AD3d 1158, 1158 ; see People v Kaminski, 61 AD3d 1113, 1116 , lv denied 12 NY3d 917 ; see also People v Burr, 17 AD3d 1131, 1132 , lv denied 5 NY3d 760 , reconsideration denied 5 NY3d 804 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Dibble
Upon discovering such physical evidence, the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for the burglary (see People v Scott-Heron, 11 AD3d 364 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 803 [2005]; People v Raily, 309 AD2d 604 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 578 [2003]; People v Sanchez, 278 AD2d 889 , 890 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 763 [2001]; see also People v Bridgefourth, 13 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 828 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]) and to search his person incident to that arrest (see People v Paul, 6 AD3d 1129, 1130 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]; Ralston, 303 AD2d at 1014-1015 ; People v Bland,…
PEOPLE
v.
CASSIDY
v.
CASSIDY
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 20, 2005.
Published
Application in criminal cases for leave to appeal denied. (Kaye, Ch.J.)