green
Positive treatment
8.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Blake
Furthermore, the court was not required to conduct further inquiry into the reason for defendant’s absence from the scheduled sentencing proceeding because, “had there been any plausible . . . reason for defendant’s failure to appear on the . . . scheduled sentencing date[ ], it is to be expected that defendant would have been prepared at [the rescheduled] sentencing with some supporting documentation, particularly after a warrant had been issued to secure his appearance” (Goldstein, 12 NY3d at 301 ; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011] ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Blake
Furthermore, the court was not required to conduct further inquiry into the reason for defendant’s absence from the scheduled sentencing proceeding because, “had there been any plausible . . . reason for defendant’s failure to appear on the . . . scheduled sentencing date[ ], it is to be expected that defendant would have been prepared at [the rescheduled] sentencing with some supporting documentation, particularly after a warrant had been issued to secure his appearance” (Goldstein, 12 NY3d at 301 ; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011] ).
discussed
Cited "see"
BLAKE, WILLIAM D., PEOPLE v
Furthermore, the court was not required to conduct further inquiry into the reason for defendant’s absence from the scheduled sentencing -2- 257 KA 14-00226 proceeding because, “had there been any plausible . . . reason for defendant’s failure to appear on the . . . scheduled sentencing date[], it is to be expected that defendant would have been prepared at [the rescheduled] sentencing with some supporting documentation, particularly after a warrant had been issued to secure his appearance” (Goldstein, 12 NY3d at 301 ; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 , lv denied 17 NY3d 810 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
HIBBERT, EVERTON, PEOPLE v
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that Penal Law § 70.85 is unconstitutional (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, his contention is not properly before us because he failed to provide notice to the Attorney General of his challenge to the constitutionality of the statute (see CPLR 1012 [b]; Executive Law § 71 [3]; see generally People v Williams, 82 AD3d 1576, 1578 , lv denied 17 NY3d 810 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hibbert
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that Penal Law § 70.85 is unconstitutional (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, his contention is not properly before us because he failed to provide notice to the Attorney General of his challenge to the constitutionality of the statute (see CPLR 1012 [b]; Executive Law § 71 [3]; see generally People v Williams, 82 AD3d 1576, 1578 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hibbert
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that Penal Law § 70.85 is unconstitutional (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, his contention is not properly before us because he failed to provide notice to the Attorney General of his challenge to the constitutionality of the statute (see CPLR 1012 [b]; Executive Law § 71 [3]; see generally People v Williams, 82 AD3d 1576, 1578 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Myers
This balancing requires “special care,” and mere reliance on other cases in which similar evidence has been found to be admissible does not suffice (People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 677 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]); a “case-specific” analysis is necessary (People v Westerling, 48 AD3d 965, 966 [2008]; accord People v Tyrell, 82 AD3d 1352 , 1355 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Myers
This balancing requires “special care,” and mere reliance on other cases in which similar evidence has been found to be admissible does not suffice (People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 677 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]); a “case-specific” analysis is necessary (People v Westerling, 48 AD3d 965, 966 [2008]; accord People v Tyrell, 82 AD3d 1352 , 1355 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gerald
Moreover, the court was not required to conduct further inquiry into the cause of defendant’s absence from a scheduled sentencing hearing because, “had there been any plausible [medical] reason for defendant’s failure to appear on the . . . prior scheduled sentencing date[ ], it is to be expected that defendant would have been prepared at sentencing with some supporting documentation, particularly after a warrant had been issued to secure his appearance” (People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gerald
Moreover, the court was not required to conduct further inquiry into the cause of defendant’s absence from a scheduled sentencing hearing because, “had there been any plausible [medical] reason for defendant’s failure to appear on the . . . prior scheduled sentencing date[ ], it is to be expected that defendant would have been prepared at sentencing with some supporting documentation, particularly after a warrant had been issued to secure his appearance” (People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
GERALD, RALPH TROY, PEOPLE v
Moreover, the court was not required to conduct further inquiry into the cause of defendant’s absence from a scheduled sentencing hearing because, “had there been any plausible [medical] reason for defendant’s failure to appear on the . . . prior scheduled sentencing date[], it is to be expected that defendant would have been prepared at sentencing with some supporting documentation, particularly after a warrant had been issued to secure his appearance” (People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 ; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 , lv denied 17 NY3d 810 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
SCOTT, DENNIS, PEOPLE v
The record establishes that defendant “was clearly informed of the consequences of his failure” to abide by the conditions of his plea agreement (Sprague, 82 AD3d at 1649 ; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 , lv denied 17 NY3d 810 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Scott
The record establishes that defendant “was clearly informed of the consequences of his failure” to abide by the conditions of his plea agreement (Sprague, 82 AD3d at 1649 ; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Scott
The record establishes that defendant “was clearly informed of the consequences of his failure” to abide by the conditions of his plea agreement (Sprague, 82 AD3d at 1649 ; see People v Winters, 82 AD3d 1691, 1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
TSOURISTAKIS.
v.
TSOURISTAKIS.
Not in source.
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 20, 2011.
Published
Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied. (Ciparick, J.).