People v. Laraby, 703 N.E.2d 756 (N.Y. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Laraby, 703 N.E.2d 756 (N.Y. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Parks v. Sheahan (nyed, 2015-05-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parks v. Sheahan
E.D.N.Y · 2015 · confidence medium
People v. Laraby, 92 N.Y.2d 932 , 680 N.Y.S.2d 898 , 703 N.E.2d 756, 756 (1998) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Parks
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Although the defendant made a motion to set aside the verdict based on insufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony regarding both of the subject incidents, this postverdict motion did not preserve his legal sufficiency claim with respect to one of those incidents (see People v Laraby, 92 NY2d 932, 933 [1998]; People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990]).
discussed Cited "see" Jose Rivera v. State of New York
NY · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Ctr., 97 NY2d 247, 251-252 [2002]; see Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 9 The commentary to the Restatement (Third) explains that its formulation of the doctrine differs from that in the Restatement (Second) only “because it is phrased in more general terms” (Restatement [Third] of Agency § 7.07, Comment b). - 18 - - 19 - No. 92 NY2d 932 [1999]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant’s contention, therefore, is “not an issue of law that could be properly adjudicated in a CPL 330.30 motion” (People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; see People v Laraby, 92 NY2d 932, 933 [1998]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Davis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Defendant’s conviction of 21 USC § 841 (a) for possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base is equivalent to a conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony (see Penal Law § 220.16), and thus he was properly adjudicated a second felony drug offender (see People v Reilly, 273 AD2d 143, 143 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 937 [2000]; see also People v Yensi, 251 AD2d 262, 263 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 932 [1998]; see generally People v Muniz, 74 NY2d 464, 467-468 [1989]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." DAVIS, CHAZ K., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Defendant’s conviction of 21 USC § 841 (a) for possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base is equivalent to a conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony (see Penal Law § 220.16), and thus he was properly adjudicated a second felony drug offender (see People v Reilly, 273 AD2d 143, 143 , lv denied 95 NY2d 937 ; see also People v Yensi, 251 AD2d 262, 263 , lv denied 92 NY2d 932 ; see generally People v Muniz, 74 NY2d 464 , 467- 468).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Davis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Defendant’s conviction of 21 USC § 841 (a) for possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base is equivalent to a conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony (see Penal Law § 220.16), and thus he was properly adjudicated a second felony drug offender (see People v Reilly, 273 AD2d 143, 143 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 937 [2000]; see also People v Yensi, 251 AD2d 262, 263 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 932 [1998]; see generally People v Muniz, 74 NY2d 464, 467-468 [1989]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Henrius
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he acted recklessly in causing the death of the victim is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; People v Addison, 290 AD2d 453 [2002]; see also People v Laraby, 92 NY2d 932, 933 [1998]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
John E. Laraby, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 15, 1998.
703 N.E.2d 756
1998 N.Y. LEXIS 3213
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender of Oneida County, Utica (Esther Cohen Lee of counsel), for appellant., Michael A. Arcuri, District Attorney of Oneida County, Utica (Bernadette Turi Romano and William M. Weber of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal trespass in the second degree. Defendant moved to set aside the verdict on the manslaughter count, contending that a physician’s removal and withholding of a breathing tube from the comatose assault victim, at her family’s direction but without proven authorization from the victim, was a superseding cause that relieved him of criminal liability for her death. In unanimously affirming the judgment of conviction, the Appellate Division held that the evidence was overwhelming that defendant’s conduct in beating the victim was an actual contributory cause of her death (244 AD2d 946, citing Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 280).

Defendant’s sole contention before this Court is a repetition of the same ground advanced in his postverdict motion. However, he never objected to the trial court’s omission of that issue in charging on superseding cause, nor did he move to dismiss on the basis of superseding cause before the case was submitted to the jury. Defendant did not preserve the argument by raising it, for the first time, in his motion to set aside the verdict (see, People v Lawrence, 85 NY2d 1002, 1005). Thus, defendant’s present objection is unreviewable by this Court (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1000, 1002).

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

Order affirmed in a memorandum.