green
Positive treatment
5.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gueye
An attempt requires nothing more than intending to commit a crime while engaging in "conduct which tends to effect [its] commission" (Penal Law § 110.00), while forcible stealing demands only "a threatened use of force [to take or keep property], which may be implicit from the defendant's conduct or gleaned from a view of the totality of the circumstances" ( People v Rychel , 284 AD2d 662, 663 [2001]; accord People v Bynum , 68 AD3d 1348, 1349 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]; see Penal Law § 160.00 [1]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Fomby
Moreover, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, after “weighting] the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony,” we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Brisson, 68 AD3d 1544, 1546-1547 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]; People v Hall, 57 AD3d 1229, 1230-1231 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 784 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Fomby
Moreover, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, after “weighting] the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony,” we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Brisson, 68 AD3d 1544, 1546-1547 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]; People v Hall, 57 AD3d 1229, 1230-1231 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 784 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gordon
As relevant here, forcible stealing is defined as using or threatening to use “physical force upon another person for the purpose of. . . [p] reventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking” (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]; see People v Kellam, 189 AD2d 1008, 1009 [1993]). “[F]orce merely used to escape will not support a robbery” (People v Bynum, 68 AD3d 1348, 1349 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gordon
As relevant here, forcible stealing is defined as using or threatening to use “physical force upon another person for the purpose of. . . [p] reventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking” (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]; see People v Kellam, 189 AD2d 1008, 1009 [1993]). “[F]orce merely used to escape will not support a robbery” (People v Bynum, 68 AD3d 1348, 1349 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Houghtalen
A traffic stop by police is lawful “when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime” (People v Spencer, 84 NY2d 749, 753 [1995], cert denied 516 US 905 [1995]; see People v Brisson, 68 AD3d 1544, 1547-1548 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]; People v Booker, 64 AD3d 899, 900 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Buchanan
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we are satisfied that there is a valid line of reasoning from which a jury reasonably could conclude that defendant exercised dominion and control over the drugs and guns in issue (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; compare People v Carmichael, 68 AD3d 1704 , 1705 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]; People v Oldacre, 53 AD3d 675, 678-679 [2008]) — notwithstanding the fact that defendant’s access to the contraband may not have been exclusive (see e.g.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Buchanan
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we are satisfied that there is a valid line of reasoning from which a jury reasonably could conclude that defendant exercised dominion and control over the drugs and guns in issue (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; compare People v Carmichael, 68 AD3d 1704 , 1705 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 798 [2010]; People v Oldacre, 53 AD3d 675, 678-679 [2008]) — notwithstanding the fact that defendant’s access to the contraband may not have been exclusive (see e.g.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
CALDAROLA.
v.
CALDAROLA.
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 11, 2010.
Published
Application in criminal case for leave to appeal dismissed. (Pigott, J.).