People v. Shaw, 43 A.D.3d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
People v. Shaw, 43 A.D.3d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Island Intellectual Property LLC v. Reich & Tang Deposit Solutions, LLC (nyappdiv, 2017-11-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Island Intellectual Property LLC v. Reich & Tang Deposit Solutions, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The motion court should not have entertained plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, as the parties did not chart a course for summary judgment (see Primedia Inc. v SBI USA LLC, 43 AD3d 685, 686 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DeVries v. Jim Duffy, LLC
N.Y. App. Term. · 2016 · confidence medium
Nor did the court give notice of an intent to convert defendants' preanswer CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action to a motion for summary judgment addressed to other causes of action ( see CPLR 3211[c]; Primedia Inc. v SBI USA LLC , 43 AD3d 685, 686 [2007]) and it is not clear from the record that defendants deliberately charted a summary judgment course ( see Chiu v 1-9 Bond St.
cited Cited as authority (rule) DiRienzo v. James McCullagh of New York, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Primedia Inc. v SBI USA LLC, 43 AD3d 685, 686 [2007]; see also La v New York Infirmary/Beekman Downtown Hosp., 214 AD2d 425 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Michael Shaw
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 13, 2007.
43 A.D.3d 685
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered January 3, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and burglary in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 to 40 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

When defense counsel advised the court that a juror had inappropriately approached him and made comments indicating a possible bias against the defense, the court should have granted counsel’s request to make an inquiry of the juror with respect to her qualification (see CPL 270.35; People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]). Under the circumstances presented, that error is not subject to harmless error analysis (see People v Dotson, 248 AD2d 1004 [1998], Iv denied 92 NY2d 851 [1998]; see also People v Anderson, 70 NY2d 729, 730 [1987]). Since a new trial is required based on the foregoing, we need not reach defendant’s remaining arguments, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Buckley, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.