green
Positive treatment
6.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
DRAKE, TERRY, PEOPLE v
Defendant’s contention that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient with respect to counts two and three of the indictment “is not reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence” (CPL 210.30 [6]; see People v Lee, 56 AD3d 1250 , 1251, lv denied 12 NY3d 818 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Drake
Defendant’s contention that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient with respect to counts two and three of the indictment “is not reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence” (CPL 210.30 [6]; see People v Lee, 56 AD3d 1250 , 1251 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Drake
Defendant’s contention that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient with respect to counts two and three of the indictment “is not reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence” (CPL 210.30 [6]; see People v Lee, 56 AD3d 1250 , 1251 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Allen
We likewise reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Penal Law § 20.10 inasmuch as there is no evidence to support a finding that defendant’s conduct was “necessarily incidental” to the crimes perpetrated (id.; see People v Lee, 56 AD3d 1250 , 1251-1252 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Allen
We likewise reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Penal Law § 20.10 inasmuch as there is no evidence to support a finding that defendant’s conduct was “necessarily incidental” to the crimes perpetrated (id.; see People v Lee, 56 AD3d 1250 , 1251-1252 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
ALLEN, ANTHONY J., PEOPLE v
We likewise reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Penal Law § 20.10 inasmuch as there is no evidence to support a finding that defendant’s conduct was “necessarily incidental” to the crimes perpetrated (id.; see People v Lee, 56 AD3d 1250 , 1251-1252, lv denied 12 NY3d 818 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Blackman
To engage in forcible compulsion is “to compel by either . . . use of physical force; or . . . a threat, express or implied, which places [the victim] in fear of immediate death or physical injury” (Penal Law § 130.00 [8] [a], [b]; see People v Littebrant, 55 AD3d 1151, 1155 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Roberts
However, a motion challenging the reasonableness of the notice provided to the defendant must be made no later than five days after the defendant has been arraigned on the indictment (see CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; People v Rolle, 72 AD3d 1393, 1395 [2010]; accord People v Littebrant, 55 AD3d 1151, 1153 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Zulian
That contention survives the guilty plea and the valid waiver of the right to appeal “only to the extent that defendant contends that his plea was infected by the alleged ineffective assistance” (People v Nieves, 299 AD2d 888, 889 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [2003]; see People v Kapp, 59 AD3d 974 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]), and we conclude that defendant’s contention is lacking in merit.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Baker
Defendant’s contention that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient with respect to counts two and three of the indictment “is not reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence” (CPL 210.30 [6]; see People v Lee, 56 AD3d 1250 , 1251 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Kruppenbacher
Initially, we note that defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review because he did not make this argument in his motion to dismiss addressed to County Court (see People v Adamson, 47 AD3d 318 , 322 n 5 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 807 [2008]; People v Ross, 43 AD3d 567, 570-571 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 964 [2007]; People v Richard, 30 AD3d 750, 755 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]; People v Rosado, 26 AD3d 532, 533 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 762 [2006]; see also People v Leiva, 59 AD3d 161, 161 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
KELLEY.
v.
KELLEY.
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 20, 2009.
Published
Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied. (Ciparick, J.).