green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Battle
The police had probable cause to arrest defendant because they "had information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense ha[d] been . . . committed by defendant" ( People v Collins , 106 AD3d 1544 , 1545 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1072 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Shulman , 6 NY3d 1, 25 [2005], cert denied 547 US 1043 [2006]), i.e., "statements [of one of his accomplices] implicating him in the crime" ( People v Mills , 137 AD3d 1690 , 1690 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1136 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Berzups…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Webb
In addition, defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to object when the prosecutor elicited testimony from a defense witness on cross-examination that defendant’s nickname was “Threat,” and based on defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s comment on summation that the jury should consider defendant’s nickname as evidence that he possessed the weapon at issue (see People v Lauderdale, 295 AD2d 539, 540-541 [2002]; see also People v Ramos, 139 AD2d 775, 776-777 [1988], appeal dismissed 73 NY2d 866 [1988]; see gene…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
WEBB, TYRONE, PEOPLE v
In addition, defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to object when the prosecutor elicited testimony from a defense witness on cross- examination that defendant’s nickname was “Threat,” and based on defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s comment on summation that the jury should consider defendant’s nickname as evidence that he possessed the weapon at issue (see People v Lauderdale, 295 AD2d 539, 540-541 ; see also People v Ramos, 139 AD2d 775, 776-777 , appeal dismissed 73 NY2d 866 ; see generally People v Sa…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
William Ramos
v.
William Ramos
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 17, 1989.
Published
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Appellate Division’s determination of reversal 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]). Although the Appellate Division stated that its reversal was on the law, it was based upon a claimed error which was not preserved and does not present a question of law for review by this court (People v Dercole, 52 NY2d 956).