People v. Callendar, 683 N.E.2d 332 (N.Y. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Callendar, 683 N.E.2d 332 (N.Y. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Espinal, 10 A.D.3d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2004)
How cited ↗
Cited for
90 N.Y.2d at 832 Unpreserved arguments are not reviewable on appeal1 citing case
  • People v. Espinal, 10 A.D.3d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2004).published
    In this case, however, the court made no such findings, and we are unable to undertake an independent examination of the record to make such findings of our own, since any justification for the court’s action that was neither articulated b…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Donald Callendar, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 10, 1997.
Published opinion
683 N.E.2d 332
1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1359
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn (Seth M. Lieberman, Roseann B. MacKechnie and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for appellant., Andrea G. Hirsch, New York City, for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The People’s sole argument is that a prejudice standard, rather than the per se error rule, should apply to Rosario violations raised by CPL 440.10 motions made before defendant’s direct appeal is concluded (see also, People v Machado, 90 NY2d 187 [decided today]). Having failed to raise this specific issue before the hearing court, the People have not preserved their claim for our review.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.