green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Mulligan
“Because defendant failed to seek a ruling on those parts of his omnibus motion concerning the alleged [constitutional] violation ... or to object to the admission of [that] evidence at trial, we conclude that defendant abandoned his contention[ ] that [the court] erred in refusing to suppress [the evidence] on those grounds” (People v Nix, 78 AD3d 1698, 1699 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 799 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 157 [2011]; see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Mulligan
“Because defendant failed to seek a ruling on those parts of his omnibus motion concerning the alleged [constitutional] violation ... or to object to the admission of [that] evidence at trial, we conclude that defendant abandoned his contention[ ] that [the court] erred in refusing to suppress [the evidence] on those grounds” (People v Nix, 78 AD3d 1698, 1699 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 799 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 157 [2011]; see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MULLIGAN, EDWIN L., PEOPLE v
“Because defendant failed to seek a ruling on those parts of his omnibus motion concerning the alleged [constitutional] violation . . . or to object to the admission of [that] evidence at trial, we conclude that defendant abandoned his contention[] that [the court] erred in refusing to suppress [the evidence] on those grounds” (People v Nix, 78 AD3d 1698, 1699 , lv denied 16 NY3d 799 , cert denied ___ US ___, 132 S Ct 157 ; see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 , lv denied 11 NY3d 733 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hill
“The testimony of defendant that he invoked his right to counsel before confessing presented a credibility issue that [the] [c]ourt was entitled to resolve in the People’s favor” (People v Price, 309 AD2d 1259, 1259 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 578 [2003]; see People v McCooey, 156 AD2d 927 , 927 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 921 [1990]). “ ‘The suppression court’s credibility determinations and choice between conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record’ ” (People v Twillie, 28 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2006]…
discussed
Cited "see"
HILL, MILTON, PEOPLE v
“The testimony of defendant that he invoked his right to counsel before confessing presented a credibility issue that [the c]ourt was entitled to resolve in the People’s favor” (People v Price, 309 AD2d 1259, 1259 , lv denied 1 NY3d 578 ; see People v McCooey, 156 AD2d 927, 927 , lv denied 75 NY2d 921 ). “ ‘The suppression court’s credibility determinations and choice between conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record’ ” (People v Twillie, 28 AD3d 1236, 1237 , lv denied 7 NY3d 795 ; see Peop…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hill
“The testimony of defendant that he invoked his right to counsel before confessing presented a credibility issue that [the] [c]ourt was entitled to resolve in the People’s favor” (People v Price, 309 AD2d 1259, 1259 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 578 [2003]; see People v McCooey, 156 AD2d 927 , 927 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 921 [1990]). “ ‘The suppression court’s credibility determinations and choice between conflicting inferences to be drawn from the proof are granted deference and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record’ ” (People v Twillie, 28 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2006]…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Vences
Any failure to comply with the statutory requirements was therefore harmless error ( see People v Bouyea , 64 NY2d at 1142 ; People v Harris , 61 NY2d at 20 ; compare People v Anthony , 52 AD3d 864, 865 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]; People v Bryant , 180 AD2d 874, 875 [3d Dept 1992]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Kolupa
In any event, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case (see People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38 [1977]), we conclude that the alleged promise that defendant would be charged with a misdemeanor, issued an appearance ticket and released is not one that created a substantial risk of false incrimination during the course of the two-hour interview with the police (see People v Williamson, 245 AD2d 966, 967-968 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 946 [1998]; People v Hamelinck, 222 AD2d 1024 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 921 [1996]; see also People v Alexander, 51 AD3d 1380, 1381-1382 [2008], lv d…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
YADID, LLC, Respondent,
v.
GCW BELL CORP. et al., Defendants, and JACQUES ROMULUS, Appellant.
v.
GCW BELL CORP. et al., Defendants, and JACQUES ROMULUS, Appellant.
Published
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 5513 [b]).