People v. Green, 19 A.D.3d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Green, 19 A.D.3d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Martin (nyappdiv, 2011-02-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Moreover, he abandoned his statutory speedy trial claim by not objecting to the action proceeding to trial before County Court ruled on that application (see People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 556-557 [1980]; People v Green, 19 AD3d 1075, 1075 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 828 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Baez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel signed and filed a motion seeking an adjournment of the trial due to the untimely nature of the People's notice of intent to offer that expert testimony, we note that defense counsel "did nothing to call the court's attention to its failure to rule on such application[], and thus he abandoned the issue" ( People v Ramos , 35 AD3d 247, 247 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 926 [2007]; see People v Green , 19 AD3d 1075, 1075 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 828 [2005]; see also People v Graves , 85 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Corey Green
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 10, 2005.
19 A.D.3d 1075
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6250
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered May 14, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). Defendant abandoned his motion seeking dismissal of the indictment based on the alleged denial of his right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.20 and 30.30 when he proceeded to trial despite the failure of Supreme Court to rule on his motion (see People v Sommerville, 6 AD3d 1232 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 648 [2004]; People v Rodriguez, 187 AD2d 291, 292 [1992]). In addition, he thereby failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the motion should have been[*1076] granted (see Sommerville, 6 AD3d at 1232-1233; Rodriguez, 187 AD2d at 292). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish that defendant was an active participant in the robbery (see People v Knight, 192 AD2d 676 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1075 [1993]). Also contrary to the contentions of defendant, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), and the record establishes that he received meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Pine and Hayes, JJ.