green
Positive treatment
7.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Butts
(2×)
Witness 1 testified before the grand jury that she had known defendant for several years and saw him "[p]robably every day." Thus, to the extent defendant alleges that the photo array was unduly suggestive, the witness was "so familiar with the defendant that there [was] little or no risk that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification" ( People v Casanova , 119 AD3d 976, 980 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Smith ,137 AD3d 1323, 1326-1327 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Lane
Although the affirmative defense of EED is available with respect to the count of murder in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a] [i]), that defense would have required that defendant establish that he "suffered from a mental infirmity not rising to the level of insanity at the time of the homicide, typically manifested by a loss of self-control" ( People v Roche , 98 NY2d 70, 75 [2002]; see People v Schumaker , 136 AD3d 1369, 1372 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1075 [2016], reconsideration denied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Small
Thus, a challenge to the validity of a plea, whether based on the court's failure to mention the Boykin rights or some other alleged defect in the allocution, must be preserved depending on the facts of [each] case" ( People v Conceicao , 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]; see People v Sommers , 140 AD3d 1537, 1538 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Johnson
Footnote 3: In his reply brief, defendant acknowledges that his argument pertaining to the lack of specificity as to the time frames identified in the indictment may only be raised in the context of his ineffective assistance of counsel argument, as it does not raise a jurisdictional defect and is otherwise unpreserved ( see People v Slingerland , 101 AD3d 1265 , 1265-1266 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1104 [2013]; see also People v Smith , 137 AD3d 1323, 1325 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Johnson
Footnote 3: In his reply brief, defendant acknowledges that his argument pertaining to the lack of specificity as to the time frames identified in the indictment may only be raised in the context of his ineffective assistance of counsel argument, as it does not raise a jurisdictional defect and is otherwise unpreserved ( see People v Slingerland , 101 AD3d 1265 , 1265-1266 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1104 [2013]; see also People v Smith , 137 AD3d 1323, 1325 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Jackson
The court properly determined that the prosecutor's explanation that the prospective juror in question "is a pastor" is a race-neutral reason for using a peremptory challenge to strike that prospective juror ( see People v Holland , 179 AD2d 822 , 824 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 1050 [1992]; see also People v Schumaker , 136 AD3d 1369, 1371-1372 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1075 [2016], reconsideration denied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
People
v.
Rodriguez
v.
Rodriguez
Published
2d Dept: 139 AD3d 883 (Queens)
denied 9/8/16 (Stein, J.)