green
Positive treatment
Issue: ex post facto clauseNY ↗
Issue: unconstitutional violationNY ↗
5.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Loday (Karma)
Even if defendant had standing, his claim that section 20-453 was unconstitutionally applied to him was forfeited by the guilty plea (see People v Levin , 57 NY2d 1008, 1009 [1982], rearg denied 58 NY2d 824 [1983]; People v Devers-Scott , 248 AD2d 1024 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d [*2]850 [1998]; People v Brown , 123 AD2d 473, 474 [1986]; People v Greenfield , 100 AD2d 752 [1984]), and, in any event, lacks merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly v. DiNapoli
Until the legislature acts to address the standard, the test is whether the event precipitating the injury was so "unexpected, out of the ordinary" ( Lichtenstein at 1012, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472 , 443 N.E.2d 946 ) as to constitute an accident.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. King
The defendant’s contention that it was impossible for her to commit the crime of promoting prostitution in the second degree because she was acting as a prostitute herself when she offered herself and a minor to two undercover police officers (see Penal Law § 230.15 [1]; § 230.30 [2]) is foreclosed by her plea of guilty and her valid waiver of appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 122 [2003]; People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008, 1009 [1982]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Henry
By entering a plea of guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention that he was exempt from prosecution for criminal possession of a firearm based on his alleged status as a peace officer at the time of the offense ( see Penal Law § 265.20[a][1][c]; see generally People v Levin , 57 NY2d 1008, 1009 ; People v Harley , 154 AD3d 443, 444 ; People v King , 79 AD3d 907, 907 ; People v Gerber , 182 AD2d 252, 260-261 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Harley
By pleading guilty in the underlying proceeding, defendant automatically forfeited appellate review of his claim, based on People v Zinke ( 76 NY2d 8 [1990]), that he had an ownership interest in the stolen property, and thus could not be guilty of larceny (see People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400 [2012]; see also People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008 [1982]; People v Mendez, 25 AD3d 346 [1st Dept 2006]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Penn
By pleading guilty, defendant automatically forfeited appellate review of his claim that he was an owner of the stolen property and thus could not be guilty of larceny (see People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400 [2012]; see also People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008 [1982]; People v Mendez, 25 AD3d 346 [1st Dept 2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Benjamin Levin
v.
Benjamin Levin
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 11, 1982.
443 N.E.2d 946
1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3851
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Paula Schwartz Frome and James O. Druker for appellant., Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Elliott S. Greenspan, Peter H. Schiff and William F. Dowling of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 34 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The indictment charges the defendant with larceny in the language of the statute and thus cannot be said to be insufficient on its face (People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584). Any issue concerning the proper interpretation or application of the statute was forfeited by the guilty plea.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.