green
Positive treatment
4.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Albert
Although defendant was not indicted for the crime until 2013, we reject his contention that he was entitled to a Singer hearing to explore the reasons for the People's delay in procuring the indictment inasmuch as "the record provided County Court with a sufficient basis to determine whether the delay was justified" ( People v Rogers , 103 AD3d 1150 , 1151 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 946 [2013]; see People v Smith , 60 AD3d 706, 707 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 859 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Miller
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s comments on summation, including a statement that defense counsel was trying to “divert [the jury’s] attention away from the truth.” Although the prosecutor’s statement was improper (see People v Paul, 229 AD2d 932, 933 [1996]; People v Carter, 227 AD2d 661, 663 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1067 [1996]; People v Dunbar, 213 AD2d 1000, 1000 [1995]…
discussed
Cited "see"
MILLER, JOSHUA, PEOPLE v
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s comments on summation, including a statement that defense counsel was trying to “divert [the jury’s] attention away from the truth.” Although the prosecutor’s statement was improper (see People v Paul, 229 AD2d 932, 933 ; People v Carter, 227 AD2d 661, 663 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1067 ; People v Dunbar, 213 AD2d 1000, 1000 , lv denied 85 NY2d 972 …
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Miller
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s comments on summation, including a statement that defense counsel was trying to “divert [the jury’s] attention away from the truth.” Although the prosecutor’s statement was improper (see People v Paul, 229 AD2d 932, 933 [1996]; People v Carter, 227 AD2d 661, 663 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1067 [1996]; People v Dunbar, 213 AD2d 1000, 1000 [1995]…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Presha
We note with respect to the lack of preservation that, although defendant objected to the victim’s testimony regarding the incident of physical abuse that occurred prior to the sexual assault, he failed to request a limiting instruction either at the time of the testimony or to request that such an instruction be included in the court’s jury charge, nor did he object to the lack of a limiting instruction in the court’s charge (see CPL 470.05 [2]; Wright, 5 AD3d at 876 ; see generally People v Scission, 60 AD3d 1391, 1392 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 859 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 749 [200…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
RUSH.
v.
RUSH.
New York Court of Appeals.
May 28, 2009.
Published
Application in criminal cases for leave to appeal denied. (Graffeo, J.)