green
Positive treatment
10.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Carr
We reject the challenge by defendant to Supreme Court’s denial of his request for a missing witness charge with respect to the victim’s companions inasmuch as the request was not timely (see id. at 946; see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Pressley
Recognizing that "[t]he decision to disqualify turns on the facts of each particular case, and according deference to the court's evaluation of the juror's answers and demeanor," we perceive no basis to disturb the court's determination ( People v Abdul-Jaleel , 142 AD3d 1296 , 1297 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 946 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Daniels , 59 AD3d 730, 730-731 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]; People v Cook , 275 AD2d 1020, 1021 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 933 [2000]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Kabir
In contending that the resident did not give consent, defendant improperly relies on testimony of the resident of the home at the first trial, which ended in a hung jury. “ ‘[T]estimony subsequently elicited at trial may not be considered in connection with a challenge to a pretrial suppression determination’ ” (People v McCurty [appeal No. 2], 60 AD3d 1406, 1407 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 856 [2009]; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1054 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
KABIR, KAHLID A., PEOPLE v
In contending that the resident did not give consent, defendant improperly relies on testimony of the resident of the home at the first trial, which ended in a hung jury. “ ‘[T]estimony subsequently elicited at trial may not be considered in connection with a challenge to a pretrial suppression determination’ ” (People v McCurty [appeal No. 2], 60 AD3d 1406, 1407 , lv denied 12 NY3d 856 ; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1054 , lv denied 12 NY3d 852 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Kabir
In contending that the resident did not give consent, defendant improperly relies on testimony of the resident of the home at the first trial, which ended in a hung jury. “ ‘[T]estimony subsequently elicited at trial may not be considered in connection with a challenge to a pretrial suppression determination’ ” (People v McCurty [appeal No. 2], 60 AD3d 1406, 1407 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 856 [2009]; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1054 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Beasley
With respect to her contention that her statements were not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently made due to her alleged intoxication, “[w]e note that defendant improperly relies on trial testimony in challenging the court’s suppression ruling” (People v Ojo, 43 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 769 [2008], reconsideration denied 11 NY3d 792 [2008]; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1054 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Beasley
With respect to her contention that her statements were not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently made due to her alleged intoxication, “[w]e note that defendant improperly relies on trial testimony in challenging the court’s suppression ruling” (People v Ojo, 43 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 769 [2008], reconsideration denied 11 NY3d 792 [2008]; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1054 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
BEASLEY, CRYSTAL, PEOPLE v
With respect to her contention that her statements were not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently made due to her alleged intoxication, “[w]e note that defendant improperly relies on trial testimony in challenging the court’s suppression ruling” (People v Ojo, 43 AD3d 1367, 1368 , lv denied 10 NY3d 769 , reconsideration denied 11 NY3d 792 ; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1054 , lv denied 12 NY3d 852 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Kalinowski
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that there is a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial,” i.e, that defendant intended to kill the victim (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]; People v Tyes, 30 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 795 [2006]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Kalinowski
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that there is a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial,” i.e, that defendant intended to kill the victim (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]; People v Tyes, 30 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 795 [2006]).
discussed
Cited "see"
KALINOWSKI, ROBIN, PEOPLE v
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 ), we conclude that there is a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial,” i.e, that defendant intended to kill the victim (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 , lv denied 12 NY3d 852 ; People v Tyes, 30 AD3d 1045, 1046 , lv denied 7 NY3d 795 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Reed
Those statements, in which defendant admitted that he stabbed the victim in retaliation for his role in assisting defendant’s brother to commit suicide, were spontaneous and not “the product of ‘express questioning or its functional equivalent’ ” (People v Bryant, 59 NY2d 786, 788 [1983], rearg dismissed 65 NY2d 638 [1985], quoting Rhode Island v Innis, 446 US 291, 300-301 [1980]; see People v Cooper, 59 AD3d 1052, 1053-1054 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Burns
In totality, contrary to defendant’s contention, our review of these and other alleged errors by the People does not reveal “a flagrant and pervasive pattern of prosecutorial misconduct” (People v Demming, 116 AD2d 886, 887 [1986], lv denied 67 NY2d 941 [1986]; accord People v Dickson, 58 AD3d 1016, 1018 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The People v. Urselina King
(2×)
At most, the trial court failed to adhere to a statutory procedural protection; it did not relieve defendant of her obligation to object to the court’s procedure (see Kelly, 5 NY3d at 120 ; see also People v Casanova, 62 AD3d 88, 92 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009] [holding that prescreening procedure for hardship did not fall within the mode of proceedings error exception]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Ciccone
Finally, the majority of defendant’s claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct — which, in our view, was not so pervasive as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Demming, 116 AD2d 886, 887-888 [1986], lv denied 67 NY2d 941 [1986]; see also People v Dickson, 58 AD3d 1016, 1018 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]) — were not preserved by appropriate objection and, therefore, are not subject to appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
BROWN, DARRYL R., PEOPLE v
Thus, we will not disturb the court’s determination “absent a clear abuse of discretion” (People v Rising, 289 AD2d 1069, 1070 , lv denied 97 NY2d 732 ; see also People v Thompson, 59 AD3d 1115, 1117 , lv denied 12 NY3d 852 , 860).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Clisby
Further, defendant failed to preserve his claim that the prosecution, during trial, improperly bolstered the credibility of its witnesses (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lee, 16 AD3d 704, 705 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 887 [2005]; see also People v Dashosh, 59 AD3d 731, 731 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 852 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
CARNCROSS.
v.
CARNCROSS.
New York Court of Appeals.
May 20, 2009.
Published
Application in criminal cases for leave to appeal granted. (Smith, J.)