green
Positive treatment
41.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Falls
(2×)
Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appellate review as he did not renew his motion to dismiss after he testified on his own behalf ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Faraone , 186 AD3d 1394 [2020]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Marcantonio
In light of that argument, we do not view the question posed by counsel as itself effecting renewal of the prior motion in full ( see generally People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Echevarria-Acevedo (Heriberto)
Similarly, defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence [*2]supporting his conviction of driving without a headlight illuminated is unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal made at the close of the People's rebuttal case ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Acevedo , 136 AD3d 1386 [2016]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Vasquez (Yessenia)
Defendant's contention that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction is unpreserved for our review, as she failed to renew her motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting her own evidence ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Acevedo , 136 AD3d 1386, 1386 [2016]; cf. People v Finch , 23 NY3d 408, 412, 416 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Salierno (Marissa)
Defendant's contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to establish that she was intoxicated is unpreserved for appellate review, as defendant made only a general motion to dismiss following the People's case ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]) and failed to renew the motion after presenting her own evidence ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; Hines , 97 NY2d at 61 ; cf. People v Finch , 23 NY3d 408, 412, 416 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Vasquez (Yessenia)
Defendant's contention that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt of harassment in the second degree is unpreserved for our review, as she failed to renew her motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting her own evidence ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Acevedo , 136 AD3d 1386, 1386 [2016]; cf. People v Finch , 23 NY3d 408, 412, 416 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Young
Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, however, as he failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after resting his case ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Saunders , 176 AD3d 1384 , 1385 [2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 973 [2020]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kalabakas
Thus, when the People rested, it was at "the conclusion of all the evidence" (CPL 290.10 [1]) and defendant was not required to renew his motion to dismiss after he rested ( cf. People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Kirkpatrick , 32 NY2d 17, 21 [1973]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Crider
Initially, defendant's legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved because he failed to renew his motion to dismiss at the close of his proof ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Rice , 172 AD3d 1616 , 1619 [2019]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sutton
Initially, defendant's legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved for our review because he did not renew his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence at the close of his proof ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane , 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Daniels
Footnotes Footnote 1: Defendant also failed to renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rice
Although defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's proof, she failed to preserve her attack on the legal sufficiency of the evidence because she did not renew that motion after offering her own proof ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Anthony , 152 AD3d 1048, 1053 [2017], lvs denied 30 NY3d 978 , 981 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Martinez
Although defendant did not preserve his legal sufficiency argument because he did not renew his motion to dismiss at the close of his proof ( see People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]), "we necessarily determine whether the elements of the crime[s] were proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as part of our weight of the evidence review ( People v Vanderhorst , 117 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1089 [2014]; see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McGahan (Brendon)
(2×)
Thus, his contention regarding the lack of evidence of physical injury is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa , 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Frazier
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate *792 review (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; cf. People v Squires, 68 AD3d 900, 900 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Flores
Remaining Contentions The defendants’ challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Christian
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Pringle
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Pringle
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ganz
With respect to the challenge to the legal sufficiency of the proof, prior to People v Finch ( 23 NY3d 408 [2014]), we would have concluded, pursuant to People v Hines ( 97 NY2d 56 [2001]), that defendant failed to preserve any claim as to the legal sufficiency of the evidence because, after presenting evidence, she did not renew the motion to dismiss for evidentiary insufficiency that she had made at the close of the People’s case (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Smith, 43 Misc 3d 71 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Nowlan
Initially, defendant failed to renew his motion to dismiss the charges at the close of his proof and, as such, his contention regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for our review (see People *1147 v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Reeves, 124 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1076 [2015]; People v Robinson, 123 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [2015]; People v Kennedy, 75 AD3d 766, 767 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 853 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Powell
In order to preserve a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must make a specific motion to dismiss at the close of the proof (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Desmond, 118 AD3d 1131, 1132 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1002 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wallace
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Reeves
Initially, defendant failed to renew her motion to dismiss the charges at the close of her proof and, as such, her contention that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for our review (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Valverde, 122 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rembert
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of petit larceny is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PeoplevValverde
To begin, defendant failed to preserve his argument that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence since he did not renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]; compare People v Finch, 23 NY3d 408, 416 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Valverde
To begin, defendant failed to preserve his argument that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence since he did not renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]; compare People v Finch, 23 NY3d 408, 416 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Valverde
To begin, defendant failed to preserve his argument that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence since he did not renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]; compare People v Finch, 23 NY3d 408, 416 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Finch
(2×)
Smith, J., concurring]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009, Smith, J., concurring]; see also People v Santiago, 22 NY3d 740 [2014] [mentioning, but not addressing, an argument that Hines should be overruled]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Smith
Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his guilt of both disorderly conduct and resisting arrest was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt as he failed to move to dismiss the charges at the close of all of the evidence (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Von Thaden
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of attempted assault in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Von Thaden
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of attempted assault in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Townsend
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of reckless endangerment in the first degree and driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Townsend
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of reckless endangerment in the first degree and driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santiago
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence corroborating her confession, as required by CPL 60.50, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Monroe, 49 AD3d 900 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santiago
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence corroborating her confession, as required by CPL 60.50, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Monroe, 49 AD3d 900 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Donaldson
That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal and failed to renew that motion after presenting evidence (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Beam
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions as to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Race
We note that, based on defendant’s failure to renew his motion to dismiss for lack of legal sufficiency after the close of his proof, defendant’s contention regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Garrow, 75 AD3d 849, 850 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kennedy
To the extent that defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, his argument is unpreserved for our review because he presented his own evidence at trial and, after the close of all proof, he did not renew his motion to dismiss (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Small
Although his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]), we exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The People v. Jose Perez
Similarly, in People v Morey, the Appellate Division upheld a conviction for endangering the welfare of a child where the defendant masturbated in front of a 6-year-old child ( 224 AD2d 730, 732 [3d Dept 1996]; see also People v Kolupa, 59 AD3d 1134, 1135 [4th Dept 2009] [the exposure of one’s genitals to a seven-year-old is enough to constitute endangering the welfare of a child in New York], affd on other grounds 13 NY3d 786 [2009]).10 10 Notably, in State v Hackett, the Supreme Court of New Jersey also equated conduct underlying New Jersey’s lewdness and endangering the welfare of a chi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Santiago
The People cite our precedent that if a trial judge denies defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case, and the defendant does not renew his motion to dismiss after defendant has presented his case, defendant will be considered to have “waived review of the mid-trial decision” to deny the motion to dismiss (People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; see also People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004]). * For her part, defendant asks us to overrule Hines .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Heary
Inasmuch as defendant did not renew his motion to dismiss after he presented evidence, he failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; see also People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
HEARY, RICHARD, PEOPLE v
Inasmuch as defendant did not renew his motion to dismiss after he presented evidence, he failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 , rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 ; see also People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 ; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Heary
Inasmuch as defendant did not renew his motion to dismiss after he presented evidence, he failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; see also People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Shannon M. Kolupa, Appellant
v.
Shannon M. Kolupa, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 22, 2009.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender, Criminal Division, Utica {Esther Cohen Lee of counsel), for appellant., Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica {Steven G. Cox of counsel), for respondent.
Smith.
Cited by 73 opinions | Published
Lead Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
[*787] Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the People introduced insufficient evidence to corroborate the child victim’s testimony. At the close of the People’s case, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and defendant proceeded to present his own evidence. He did not thereafter renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof or specifically argue that there was not sufficient corroboration of the victim’s statements. As a result, this issue is not reviewable (see e.g. People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]). Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.
Concurrence
Smith, J. (concurring).
Today’s decision correctly applies People v Hines (97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]). I have expressed my unhappiness with Hines before (People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004, R.S. Smith, J., concurring]), but this case, in which the Appellate Division did not mention preservation, defendant does not argue the issue, and the Appellate Division’s decision on the merits seems clearly correct, is not the right one for further examination of the Hines rule.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Judge Smith concurs in a separate concurring opinion.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.