green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Malcolm
Considering the ease by which the safety could be disengaged, the victim’s testimony that defendant reloaded the weapon and ejected a round—while still pointing the weapon at him—as he rushed to subdue defendant, and the uncontradicted proof that the two thereafter struggled for control of the loaded rifle, there was ample support for a finding that defendant recklessly created a grave risk of death “by creating a situation where any sudden movement by the [victim] or defendant could readily have resulted in the accidental discharge of the weapon” (People v Chrysler, 85 NY2d 413, 416…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Parker
We agree with defendant that the sentence imposed for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree must run concurrently with the sentence imposed for assault in the first degree, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. “[T]here was no evidence of intent to intimidate the victim [s] separate from the intent to shoot [them]” (People v Miles, 288 AD2d 877, 877-878 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 758 [2002]; see People v Holland, 13 AD3d 1101 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 853 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Ball
“Exigent circumstances for a civilian showup are required only when it is conducted at a police station or when it is not held in geographic and temporal proximity to the crime” (People v Ponder, 42 AD3d 880, 881 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 925 [2007]; see People v Eaves, 15 AD3d 891, 892 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 853 [2005]) and, as we previously held, the showup identification procedure was conducted in geographic and temporal proximity to the crime (see Newton, 24 AD3d at 1288).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Caballero
“Where, as here, the People have initially demonstrated the legality of the police conduct and defendant’s waiver, the burden of persuasion on the motion to suppress rests with defendant” (People v Shields, 125 AD2d 863, 864 [1986], lv denied 69 NY2d 955 [1987]; see People v Drumm, 15 AD3d 910 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 853 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Ponder
Exigent circumstances for a civilian showup are required only when it is conducted at a police station or when it is not held in geographic and temporal proximity to the crime (see People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]; People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544 [1991]; see also People v Eaves, 15 AD3d 891 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 853 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
GRAHAM
v.
GRAHAM
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 26, 2005.
Published
Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied. (Rosenblatt, J.).