Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
People v. Lee
Although defense counsel specifically requested that County Court not instruct the jury that Blount was an accomplice as a matter of law — and, thus, any challenge to the jury charge is not preserved — defendant preserved his challenge to the distinct legal issue of the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence by a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case that was both specifically directed at the error now alleged on appeal and renewed after defendant presented evidence (see People v Hines, 24 AD3d 964, 965-967 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 834 [2006]; People v Mahan, 195 AD2d 88…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rossal-Daub v. Walter
However, mindful that “[s]ummary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue” (Currier v Wiltrom Assoc., 250 AD2d 956, 956 [1998] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]) and viewing, as we must, the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff (see id. at 957 ), we conclude that issues of fact remain as to defendants’ control over the premises, whether they assumed responsibility for making repairs through their conduct and whether they fulfilled their duty to inspect and maintain the hayloft floor …
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Andrade
Additionally, when a correction officer bases his or her opinion on factual testimony, "his [or her] training and experience set forth in the record [is] sufficient to qualify him [or her] to render such an opinion" ( People v Lamont , 21 AD3d at 1132 ; see generally People v Wright , 13 AD3d 726, 728 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]; People v Duchowney , 166 AD2d 769, 770-771 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rossborough
Defendant was not entitled to review the presentence report inasmuch as “the record establishes that defendant was represented by counsel and that the presentence report was reviewed by defense counsel” (People v June, 30 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 813 [2006], reconsideration denied 7 NY3d 868 [2006]; see CPL 390.50 [2] [a]; see generally People v Vaughan, 20 AD3d 940, 942 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]), and thus it cannot be said that there was no legitimate explanation for defense counsel’s alleged deficiency in failing to show it to him (see generally People v Rive…
discussed
Cited "see"
ROSSBOROUGH, RONALD D., PEOPLE v
Defendant was not entitled to review the presentence report inasmuch as “the record establishes that defendant was represented by counsel and that the presentence report was reviewed by defense counsel” (People v June, 30 AD3d 1016, 1017 , lv denied 7 NY3d 813 , reconsideration denied 7 NY3d 868 ; see CPL 390.50 [2] [a]; see generally People v Vaughan, 20 AD3d 940, 942 , lv denied 5 NY3d 857 ), and thus it cannot be said that there was no legitimate explanation for defense counsel’s alleged deficiency in failing to show it to him (see generally People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Rossborough
Defendant was not entitled to review the presentence report inasmuch as “the record establishes that defendant was represented by counsel and that the presentence report was reviewed by defense counsel” (People v June, 30 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 813 [2006], reconsideration denied 7 NY3d 868 [2006]; see CPL 390.50 [2] [a]; see generally People v Vaughan, 20 AD3d 940, 942 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]), and thus it cannot be said that there was no legitimate explanation for defense counsel’s alleged deficiency in failing to show it to him (see generally People v Rive…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Santana
Although we agree with the People that “the motion papers ‘do not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate’ defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v Vigliotti, 24 AD3d 1216, 1216 [2005]; cf. People v Frazier, 87 AD3d 1350, 1351 [2011]; People v Howard, 12 AD 3d 1127, 1128 [2004]; see generally People v Vaughan, 20 AD3d 940, 942 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]), County Court did not decide that issue adversely to defendant, and thus we decline to affirm the order on that ground (see generally People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 19…
discussed
Cited "see"
SANTANA, ALBERT, PEOPLE v
Although we agree with the People that “the motion papers ‘do not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate’ defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v Vigliotti, 24 AD3d 1216, 1216 ; cf. People v Frazier, 87 AD3d 1350, 1351 ; People v Howard, 12 AD3d 1127, 1128 ; see generally People v Vaughan, 20 AD3d 940, 942 , lv denied 5 NY3d 857 ), County Court did not decide that issue adversely to defendant, and thus we decline to affirm the order on that ground (see generally People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Santana
Although we agree with the People that “the motion papers ‘do not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate’ defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v Vigliotti, 24 AD3d 1216, 1216 [2005]; cf. People v Frazier, 87 AD3d 1350, 1351 [2011]; People v Howard, 12 AD 3d 1127, 1128 [2004]; see generally People v Vaughan, 20 AD3d 940, 942 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]), County Court did not decide that issue adversely to defendant, and thus we decline to affirm the order on that ground (see generally People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 19…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
THORSEN.
v.
THORSEN.
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 24, 2005.
Published
Applications in criminal cases for leave to appeal denied. (G.B. Smith, J.) (upon reconsideration)