green
Positive treatment
36.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph v. Conway
Thus, "defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court's [proposed] response, and failed to object at that time, when the error[, if any,] could have been cured." People v. Ramirez, 935 N.E.2d 791, 791 (N.Y. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hackett
Because defense counsel had notice of the contents of both notes and did not object to the court's response to either, defendant's arguments with regard to the notes were not preserved ( see People v Ramirez , 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ramos
There was no mode of proceedings error, because the court read the jury note in question into the record almost verbatim ( see People v Ramirez , 60 AD3d 560, 561 [1st Dept 2009], affd 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cowell
The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s handling of certain jury notes violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; People v Bedeau, 129 AD3d 853 [2015]; People v Santiago, 117 AD3d 759, 760 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Slattery
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court failed to comply with the procedure for handling jury notes set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) with respect to one of several jury notes is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Fabers, 133 AD3d 616 , 617 *780 [2015]; People v Santiago, 117 AD3d 759, 760 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. LaDuke
However, where, as here, “defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court’s [intended] response, and failed to object at that time,” there is no mode of proceedings error and the claim is unpreserved for our review (People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; see People v Alcide, 21 NY3d at 694 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The People v. Terrance L. Mack
(2×)
That holding was based upon our precedent requiring preservation when the trial court departs from the O'Rama procedure but counsel nevertheless has meaningful notice of the - 5 - - 6 - No. 74 jury note (see People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 693-694 [2013]; People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 934-935 [2013]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Deokoro
The alleged failure to comply with the O’Rama procedure did not constitute a mode of proceedings error which would obviate the preservation requirement because it is evident from the record that the Supreme Court fulfilled its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30 by providing defense counsel with meaningful notice of the content of the jury note at issue (see People v Nealon, 26 NY3d 152 [2015]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; People v Kadarko, 14 NY3d 426, 429-430 [2010]; People v Fabers, 133 AD3d 616, 618 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McClean
Although defense counsel was made aware of the substance of the communication and the steps taken by the court in response to it, he failed to object (see People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 934-935 [2013]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brito
Thus, counsel’s silence and failure to object to this procedure “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection renders the claim unpreserved and unreviewable” (id.; see also People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 935 [2013]; People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 694 [2013]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Murphy
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to respond to a jury note before taking the verdict is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 694 [2013]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; People v Braithwaite, 126 AD3d 993, 996 [2015]; People v Albanese, 45 AD3d 691, 692 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Fabers
The alleged failure to comply with the O’Rama procedure did not constitute a mode of proceedings error which would obviate the preservation requirement because it is evident from the record that the Supreme Court fulfilled its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30 by providing defense counsel with meaningful notice of the content of the jury’s notes (see People v Nealon, 26 NY3d 152 [2015]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; People v Kadarko, 14 NY3d 426, 429-430 [2010]; People v Heron, 130 AD3d 754, 756 [2015]; People v Pressley, 115 AD3d 991, 992 [2014]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McDonald
The defendant failed to preserve his claim of error for appellate review (see People v Alcide, 21 NY3d at 694 ; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ekwegbalu
These contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 694 [2013]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Proctor, 104 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2013]) and, in any event, are *985 without merit (see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982]; People v Rivera, 41 AD3d 347 [2007]; People v Gauze, 3 AD3d 538, 538 [2004]; People v Chavez, 280 AD2d 350, 350 [2001]; People v Hollis, 216 AD2d 17 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bedeau
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s handling of certain jury notes violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Braithwaite
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in its handling of a jury note is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 694 [2013]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; People v Albanese, 45 AD3d 691, 692 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santiago
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s procedure for handling certain jury notes violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Walston, 101 AD3d 1156 , 1157-1158 [2012], lv granted 21 NY3d 915 [2013]; People v Alcide, 95 AD3d 897, 898 [2012], affd, 21 NY3d 687 [2013]), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santiago
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s procedure for handling certain jury notes violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Walston, 101 AD3d 1156 , 1157-1158 [2012], lv granted 21 NY3d 915 [2013]; People v Alcide, 95 AD3d 897, 898 [2012], affd, 21 NY3d 687 [2013]), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Anderson
Defense counsel was on notice of both “the contents of the [jury’s] note and the court’s response, and failed to object at that time, when the error could have been cured” (People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; see also People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 694 [2013]; People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 934-935 [2013]; People v Ippolito, 20 NY3d 615, 624-625 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Anderson
Defense counsel was on notice of both “the contents of the [jury’s] note and the court’s response, and failed to object at that time, when the error could have been cured” (People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; see also People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 694 [2013]; People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 934-935 [2013]; People v Ippolito, 20 NY3d 615, 624-625 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
With regard to that jury note, the defendant’s contention on appeal that the Supreme Court violated the procedure set forth in O’Rama is unpreserved for appellate review, “as . . . defense counsel had notice of a jury note and Tailed to object . . . when the error could have been cured’ ” (People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 935 [2013], quoting People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; see People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 693-694 [2013]; People v Ippolito, 20 NY3d 615, 624-625 [2013]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
With regard to that jury note, the defendant’s contention on appeal that the Supreme Court violated the procedure set forth in O’Rama is unpreserved for appellate review, “as . . . defense counsel had notice of a jury note and Tailed to object . . . when the error could have been cured’ ” (People v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 935 [2013], quoting People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; see People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687, 693-694 [2013]; People v Ippolito, 20 NY3d 615, 624-625 [2013]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Collins
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court violated CPL 310.30 and deprived him of a fair trial by failing to meaningfully respond to a certain jury note is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825 [2010]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Walston, 101 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2012]; People v Battle, 15 AD3d 413, 414 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Collins
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court violated CPL 310.30 and deprived him of a fair trial by failing to meaningfully respond to a certain jury note is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825 [2010]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Walston, 101 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2012]; People v Battle, 15 AD3d 413, 414 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
Where, as here, defense counsel had notice of a jury note and “failed to object . . . when the error could have been cured,” lack of preservation bars the claim (People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; see also People v Ippolito, 20 NY3d 615 [2013]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kahley
In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that not all O’Rama violations constitute mode of proceedings errors (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134-135 [2007]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kahley
In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that not all O’Rama violations constitute mode of proceedings errors (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134-135 [2007]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
Accordingly, defense counsel’s failure to object at that time, when the error could have been cured, renders defendant’s claim unpreserved for review (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
Accordingly, defense counsel’s failure to object at that time, when the error could have been cured, renders defendant’s claim unpreserved for review (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ippolito
He was present when the question was asked and answered, yet failed to object at that time, when the judge could have easily cured the claimed error (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Proctor
That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defense counsel failed to raise that contention before the jury had recommenced its deliberations, when any “error could have been cured” (People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; see People v Smart, 100 AD3d 1473, 1474 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Proctor
That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defense counsel failed to raise that contention before the jury had recommenced its deliberations, when any “error could have been cured” (People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 826 [2010]; see People v Smart, 100 AD3d 1473, 1474 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Smart
We thus conclude that defendant was required to preserve his contentions for our review, but he failed to do so (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Rivera, 83 AD3d 1370, 1370-1371 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 904 [2011]; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134-135 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Smart
We thus conclude that defendant was required to preserve his contentions for our review, but he failed to do so (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Rivera, 83 AD3d 1370, 1370-1371 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 904 [2011]; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134-135 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Simmons
The defendant’s contentions that the Supreme Court erred in responding to oral questions posed to it by an individual juror in the presence of the attorneys and the defendant without first giving defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to be heard and then giving the jury, in effect, an Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492 [1896]), and in not conducting an in camera inquiry to determine whether one of the jurors was “grossly unqualified to serve” (CPL 270.35 [1]; see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), and that various comments made by the prosecutor during her sum…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Simmons
The defendant’s contentions that the Supreme Court erred in responding to oral questions posed to it by an individual juror in the presence of the attorneys and the defendant without first giving defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to be heard and then giving the jury, in effect, an Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492 [1896]), and in not conducting an in camera inquiry to determine whether one of the jurors was “grossly unqualified to serve” (CPL 270.35 [1]; see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), and that various comments made by the prosecutor during her sum…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Alcide
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s procedure for handling certain jury notes violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Bryant, 82 AD3d 1114 [2011]), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rivera
Because defense counsel was aware of both the inquiry from the juror and the trial court’s response thereto, she was required to object to the trial court’s procedure in responding to the question in order to preserve defendant’s contention for our review, and she failed to do so (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Houghtaling
A jury’s verdict will be upheld as legally sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence demonstrates a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825 [2010]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Brown
The People are correct that a timely objection to an alleged O’Rama error may be required where defense counsel had “knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Sydoriak
While a timely objection to an alleged O’Rama error may be required where “defense counsel . . . [has] knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825 [2010]), here, it is not evident from the record that defense counsel knew how the trial court would respond to the jury’s inquiry, in court exhibit 15, as to whether it could return a partial verdict.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Morris
While a timely objection to an alleged O’Rama error may be required where the jury requests a readback and “defense counsel . . . [has] knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825 [2010]), here, it is not evident from the record that defense counsel was aware that the trial court would give only part of a witness’s testimony in response to a jury note, such as the one at issue here, requesting a readback.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Arnold
Where, as here, the jury note is read verbatim in open court and defendant had knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response, “[defense] counsel’s silence at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection renders the claim unpreserved” for our review (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Woods, 72 AD3d 1563, 1564 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 811 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Arnold
Where, as here, the jury note is read verbatim in open court and defendant had knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response, “[defense] counsel’s silence at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection renders the claim unpreserved” for our review (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; People v Woods, 72 AD3d 1563, 1564 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 811 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
ARNOLD, JR., BILLY J., PEOPLE v
Where, -2- 438 KA 06-03041 as here, the jury note is read verbatim in open court and defendant had knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response, “[defense] counsel’s silence at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection renders the claim unpreserved” for our review (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 ; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 ; People v Woods, 72 AD3d 1563, 1564 , lv denied 15 NY3d 811 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rivera
Defendant therefore was required to register an objection in order to preserve for our review his challenge to the procedure employed by the court in responding to the jury notes, “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 [2007]).
discussed
Cited "see"
RIVERA, HECTOR, PEOPLE v
Defendant therefore was required to register an objection in order to preserve for our review his challenge to the procedure employed by the court in responding to the jury notes, “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 ; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 ; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Morrison
But just as we "cannot assume that the proper procedure was utilized when the record is devoid of information as to how jury notes were handled" ( Silva , 24 NY3d at 300 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Parker , 32 NY3d at 60 ), we also should not assume that meaningful notice was lacking, particularly when the record indicates otherwise ( see Walker , 18 NY3d at 840 ; Monclavo , 87 NY2d at 1031 ; Michalek , 82 NY2d at 907 ; Odiat , 82 NY2d at 874 ; see also Ramirez , 60 AD3d at 561 ["The record warrants an inference that the court discussed the note with counsel during a luncheon recess in…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc.
(2×)
See also Roni LLC v. Arfa, 72 A.D.3d 413, 413-14 , 897 N.Y.S.2d 421 (1st Dep’t), aff'd, 15 N.Y.3d 826 , 909 N.Y.S.2d 1 , 935 N.E.2d 791 (2010) (dismissing the aiding and abetting claim because, “[a]t most, the documentary evidence indicates that the attorney defendants structured and organized entities that acted as the brokers on the property acquisitions and collected commissions—activities which are part of ordinary real estate lawyering”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Timoteo Ramirez, Appellant
v.
Timoteo Ramirez, Appellant
207 SSM 40.
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 16, 2010.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, LLP, Ithaca (Diane V. Bruns of counsel), for appellant., Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Grace Vee of counsel), for respondent.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur.
Cited by 77 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Contrary to defendant’s argument, the Appellate Division properly concluded that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant constructively possessed the drugs and drug paraphernalia located in an apartment in which defendant himself was found (see generally People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).
Moreover, although the record is silent as to whether Supreme Court showed the jury note to counsel as required in[*826] People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]), defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court’s response, and failed to object at that time, when the error could have been cured. Accordingly, defendant’s claim is unpreserved for review (see People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see also People v Kadarko, 14 NY3d 426, 429-430 [2010]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.