People v. Cunningham, 740 N.E.2d 213 (N.Y. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Cunningham, 740 N.E.2d 213 (N.Y. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. White (nyappdiv, 2017-02-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the fact that we did not set aside its premature verdict when the appeal was previously before us did not preclude it from considering further proof or making new factual determinations (cf. People v Cunningham, 95 NY2d 909, 910 [2000]; see generally People v Mitchell, 144 AD3d 1598, 1600 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the fact that we did not set aside its premature verdict when the appeal was previously before us did not preclude it from considering further proof or making new factual determinations (cf. People v Cunningham, 95 NY2d 909, 910 [2000]; see generally People v Mitchell, 144 AD3d 1598, 1600 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. Wieboldt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Justice Wieboldt’s reconsideration of his verdict “constituted a factual determination that ‘comes too late and exceeds the scope of [his] authority’ ” (People v Cunningham, 95 NY2d 909, 910 [2000], quoting People v Maharaj, supra at 999 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Dobson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
This power is reserved to the Appellate Division, which essentially sits as a thirteenth juror” (People v Hampton, 21 NY3d 277, 287 [2013] [citation omitted]; see People v Cunningham, 95 NY2d 909, 910 [2000], amended 95 NY2d 949 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Edward v. K. Cunningham, III, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 6, 2000.
740 N.E.2d 213
2000 N.Y. LEXIS 1835
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Goldman & Hafetz, New York City (Lawrence S. Goldman and William H. Devaney of counsel), for appellant., William V. Grady, District Attorney of Duchess County, Poughkeepsie (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur Judge Rosenblatt Taking No Part.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be modified by vacating the conviction for driving while intoxicated and remitting to City Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after a bench trial of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3) and § 1194 (1) (b). In reaching a verdict on the section 1192 (3) charge, the Trial Judge applied a definition of intoxication which improperly lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof (see, People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419; cf., People v Ardila, 85 NY2d 846). Upon defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, the Judge reconsidered the evidence in light of the Cruz definition of intoxication and again found defendant guilty. The Appellate Term affirmed.

The Court’s reconsideration of its verdict under a different standard constituted a factual determination that “comes too late and exceeds the scope of [the court’s] authority” (People v Maharaj, 89 NY2d 997, 999; People v Carter, 63 NY2d 530). To allow the second verdict to stand would permit the Trial Judge to engage in postverdict fact finding that would not be possible in a jury trial, thereby according “less finality to the verdict of a Trial Judge when sitting as [the trier of fact] than to a jury verdict” (People v Carter, supra, at 539; see also, CPL 320.20 [4]). Accordingly, defendant’s conviction for driving while intoxicated should be vacated and a new trial held on that charge.

Defendant’s remaining contention lacks merit.

[*911] Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur; Judge Rosenblatt taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified and case remitted to Poughkeepsie City Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.