green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Carter
Since defendant’s conviction is “supported by legally sufficient trial evidence, [his] challenges to the instructions given during the grand jury proceeding are precluded” (People v Cotton, 120 AD3d 1564 , 1566 [2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted], lv denied 27 NY3d 963 [2016]; accord People v Gibson, 137 AD3d 1657, 1658 [2016]) and, in any event, do not set forth error requiring reversal (see People v Pacheco, 56 AD3d 381 , 384 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 786 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Spirles
“This determination disposes of defendant’s further argument that [her] statement^] to the investigator [at the police station were] tainted by the alleged illegality of the [officer’s] initial questioning” (People v Coffey, 107 AD3d 1047, 1050 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1041 [2013]; see People v Oakes, 57 AD3d 1425, 1426 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 786 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Spirles
“This determination disposes of defendant’s further argument that [her] statement^] to the investigator [at the police station were] tainted by the alleged illegality of the [officer’s] initial questioning” (People v Coffey, 107 AD3d 1047, 1050 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1041 [2013]; see People v Oakes, 57 AD3d 1425, 1426 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 786 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
SPIRLES, MICHELLE D., PEOPLE v
“This determination disposes of defendant’s further argument that -2- 93 KA 12-00206 [her] statement[s] to the investigator [at the police station were] tainted by the alleged illegality of the [officer’s] initial questioning” (People v Coffey, 107 AD3d 1047, 1050 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1041 ; see People v Oakes, 57 AD3d 1425, 1426 , lv denied 12 NY3d 786 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
SMALLS, JR., ERVIN, PEOPLE v
Furthermore, “[d]efendant was identified by the victim, who was acquainted with defendant and knew him by name” (People v Ortiz, 50 AD3d 336, 336 , lv denied 10 NY3d 962 ; see People v Noakes, 57 AD3d 280, 281 , lv denied 12 NY3d 786 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smalls
Furthermore, “[defendant was identified by the victim, who was acquainted with defendant and knew him by name” (People v Ortiz, 50 AD3d 336, 336 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 962 [2008]; see People v Noakes, 57 AD3d 280, 281 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 786 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smalls
Furthermore, “[defendant was identified by the victim, who was acquainted with defendant and knew him by name” (People v Ortiz, 50 AD3d 336, 336 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 962 [2008]; see People v Noakes, 57 AD3d 280, 281 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 786 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
MORBILLO.
v.
MORBILLO.
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 4, 2009.
Published
Application in criminal cases for leave to appeal denied. (Pigott, J.).