People v. Seeley, 44 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Seeley, 44 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Gonsalez (nyappdiv, 2016-11-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gonsalez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s first and second Batson challenges (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]), because he failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination (see People v Hecker, 15 *842 NY3d 625, 653-655 [2010]; People v Jones, 11 NY3d 822, 823 [2008]; People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 267-268 [1993]; People v Calas, 134 AD3d 1043, 1045 [2015]; People v Santos, 105 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2013]; People v Quiles, 74 AD3d 1241, 1242 [2010]; People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The County Court properly denied the defendant’s first Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]) because the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination (see People v Booker, 49 AD3d 658, 659 [2008]; People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]; People v Lassiter, 44 AD3d 877, 877-878 [2007]; People v London, 38 AD3d 570, 571 [2007]; People v Kennerly, 20 AD3d 491 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The County Court properly denied the defendant’s first Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]) because the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination (see People v Booker, 49 AD3d 658, 659 [2008]; People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]; People v Lassiter, 44 AD3d 877, 877-878 [2007]; People v London, 38 AD3d 570, 571 [2007]; People v Kennerly, 20 AD3d 491 [2005]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Quiles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
We agree with the trial court that the defendant failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to his first Batson application (see People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Constas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The defendant was informed of the right to be present and the consequences of failing to appear for trial, namely, that the trial would proceed even if he failed to appear (see People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 139-141 [1982]; People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ferguson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly completed jury selection in his absence (see People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]; People v Rosas, 34 AD3d 605 [2006]; People v Ciccarello, 276 AD2d 637, 637 [2000]; People v Myers, 215 AD2d 595, 596 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reid
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The court properly denied the defendant’s first Batson challenge because the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination (see People v Booker, 49 AD3d 658, 659 [2008]; People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]; People v Lassiter, 44 AD3d 877, 877-878 [2007]; People v London, 38 AD3d 570, 571 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Connelly
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The defendant relied solely on the number of Hispanic venirepersons challenged by the prosecution to support his request for race-neutral explanations, and offered no showing of circumstances sufficient to raise an inference of a pattern of discrimination (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]; People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]; People v Thigpen, 14 AD3d 518 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Lakatosz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
For there to be a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to be present while proceedings in a criminal prosecution are being conducted, it must be shown that the defendant was informed not only of the right to be present at the proceedings, but also of the consequences for failing to appear, including the fact that the proceedings will proceed in his or her absence (see People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 [1982]; People v Stroman, 6 AD3d 818, 819 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 648 [2004]; People v Diotte, 305 AD2d 721, 722 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 580 [2003]; see also People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Valerie Seeley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 30, 2007.
44 A.D.3d 1077
Published

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 20, 2004 (People v Seeley, 13 AD3d 562 [2004]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 25, 2003.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that she was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745 [1983]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.