People v. Rodriguez, 670 N.E.2d 223 (NY 1996). · Go Syfert
People v. Rodriguez, 670 N.E.2d 223 (NY 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Shuler (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Unlike CPL 210.10, which directs that County Court "must" order the production of a defendant who is in the custody of a local sheriff in connection with the same criminal action, we have previously held that CPL 560.10 (1) (a) requires the People to apply for production of a defendant who is detained by DOCCS in connection with a separate criminal action ( see People v Greenwaldt , 103 AD2d 933, 933-934 [3d Dept 1984]; see also People v Daniels , 217 AD2d 448, 452-453 [1st Dept 1995], appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 917 [1996]; People v Orse , 118 AD2d 816, 818 [2d Dept 1986]). [FN2] Turning to the …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Bruno
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Court of Appeals, in considering the requirements of CPL 30.30, “has consistently construed it in light of its language and its legislative history, both of which conclusively demonstrate that this so-called ‘speedy trial’ statute was intended only to address delays occasioned by prosecutorial inaction” (People v McKenna, supra at 63 ; People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529, 535 [“the history of its adoption makes evident that it addresses only the problem of prosecutorial readiness, and is not a speedy trial statute in the constitutional sense”]; People v Myers, supra at 150 [“CPL 3…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Aniel Rodriguez, Also Known as Anibal Rodriguez, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 13, 1996.
670 N.E.2d 223
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Appeal dismissed upon the ground that the reversal by the Appellate Division was not "on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]).