green
Positive treatment
Issue: fair response defenseNY ↗
Issue: police were obtained violationNY ↗
Issue: issue raised ruleNY ↗
29.0 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 ·
…either a fair response to defense counsel's summation or fair comment on the evidence
at p. 1321
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Smith
The record establishes that the court had given defendant the requisite warnings ( see People v Parker , 57 NY2d 136, 141 [1982]), and he therefore waived his right to be present at trial ( see People v Ligammari , 140 AD3d 1631 , 1632 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 971 [2016]; People v Bynum , 125 AD3d 1278 , 1278 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 927 [2015]; People v Anderson , 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gillie
Further, the prosecutor's comments during summation "were either a fair response to defense counsel's summation or fair comment on the evidence" ( People v Anderson , 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thompson
Although we agree with defendant that the court failed to address the legality of his detention in its suppression decision, we conclude that he abandoned that challenge by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his motion and failing to object at trial to testimony about the showup identification and the recovery of physical evidence from his person (see People v Linder, 114 AD3d 1200, 1200-1201 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1022 [2014]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thompson
Although we agree with defendant that the court failed to address the legality of his detention in its suppression decision, we conclude that he abandoned that challenge by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his motion and failing to object at trial to testimony about the showup identification and the recovery of physical evidence from his person (see People v Linder, 114 AD3d 1200, 1200-1201 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1022 [2014]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Parks
We thus conclude that defendant waived his right to be present at the Huntley hearing (see People v Bynum, 125 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 927 [2015]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Parks
We thus conclude that defendant waived his right to be present at the Huntley hearing (see People v Bynum, 125 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 927 [2015]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Walter
We conclude that the allegedly improper statement was merely fair comment on the evidence (see People v Anzalone, 70 AD3d 1486, 1487 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Walter
We conclude that the allegedly improper statement was merely fair comment on the evidence (see People v Anzalone, 70 AD3d 1486, 1487 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Linder
By failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion challenging the detention and by failing to object to the identification testimony on that ground at trial, defendant abandoned his challenge to the detention (see People v Adams, 90 AD3d 1508, 1509 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 954 [2012]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Linder
By failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion challenging the detention and by failing to object to the identification testimony on that ground at trial, defendant abandoned his challenge to the detention (see People v Adams, 90 AD3d 1508, 1509 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 954 [2012]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wright
By proceeding to trial and failing to raise an objection at trial concerning the court’s alleged failure to rule on his request for suppression of his January 22, 2009 statement to the police, defendant abandoned any procedural challenge to that alleged failure (see People v Nix, 78 AD3d 1698, 1699 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 799 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 157 [2011]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wright
By proceeding to trial and failing to raise an objection at trial concerning the court’s alleged failure to rule on his request for suppression of his January 22, 2009 statement to the police, defendant abandoned any procedural challenge to that alleged failure (see People v Nix, 78 AD3d 1698, 1699 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 799 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 157 [2011]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Doll
In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as the allegedly improper comments by the prosecutor were fair comment on the evidence (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]; People v Coleman, 32 AD3d 1239 , 1240 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 844 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Doll
In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as the allegedly improper comments by the prosecutor were fair comment on the evidence (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]; People v Coleman, 32 AD3d 1239 , 1240 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 844 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
KIMS, II, STANLEY R., PEOPLE v
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant initially preserved those contentions for our review (see generally People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 428 [1993]), we conclude that he thereafter abandoned them (see People v Adams, 90 AD3d 1508, 1509 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 954 [2012]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wright
The statement of the prosecutor in which he addressed the reason for the absence of a particular item of physical evidence from the evidence inventory was a “fair response to defense counsel’s summation” (People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]), and it “ ‘did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument’ ” (People v Williams, 28 AD3d 1059 , 1061 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 854 [2007], quoting People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Adger
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s general challenge to the stop and subsequent search was sufficient to preserve his present contention that the seizure of certain physical evidence was unlawful, defendant correctly concedes that he abandoned that contention before the suppression court (see generally People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]; People v Smith, 13 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 803 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hill
The alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct were “either a fair response to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence” (People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Nix
Because defendant failed to seek a ruling on those parts of his omnibus motion concerning the alleged Payton violation and pretextual arrest or to object to the admission of his statements in evidence at trial, we conclude that defendant abandoned his contentions that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police on those grounds (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McIver
In any event, that contention is without merit inasmuch as all of the prosecutor’s allegedly improper comments were either a fair response to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bigelow
By acquiescing in the lack of a ruling, the defendant abandoned that branch of the motion, thereby rendering his present Dunaway claim unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008]; People v Henriquez, 246 AD2d 427 [1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Green
In any event, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments on summation were “either a fair response to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence” (People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]; see People v Farrell, 228 AD2d 693 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 984 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MULLIGAN, EDWIN L., PEOPLE v
“Because defendant failed to seek a ruling on those parts of his omnibus motion concerning the alleged [constitutional] violation . . . or to object to the admission of [that] evidence at trial, we conclude that defendant abandoned his contention[] that [the court] erred in refusing to suppress [the evidence] on those grounds” (People v Nix, 78 AD3d 1698, 1699 , lv denied 16 NY3d 799 , cert denied ___ US ___, 132 S Ct 157 ; see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 , lv denied 11 NY3d 733 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Mulligan
“Because defendant failed to seek a ruling on those parts of his omnibus motion concerning the alleged [constitutional] violation ... or to object to the admission of [that] evidence at trial, we conclude that defendant abandoned his contention[ ] that [the court] erred in refusing to suppress [the evidence] on those grounds” (People v Nix, 78 AD3d 1698, 1699 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 799 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 157 [2011]; see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Mulligan
“Because defendant failed to seek a ruling on those parts of his omnibus motion concerning the alleged [constitutional] violation ... or to object to the admission of [that] evidence at trial, we conclude that defendant abandoned his contention[ ] that [the court] erred in refusing to suppress [the evidence] on those grounds” (People v Nix, 78 AD3d 1698, 1699 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 799 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 157 [2011]; see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1320-1321 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Donovan Anderson
v.
Donovan Anderson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 2008.
Cited by 39 opinions | Published
Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Lee Clary, J.), rendered July 15, 1993. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law former § 220.21 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the drugs found in his vehicle because the police lacked probable cause to stop and search his vehicle. We conclude that[*1321] defendant abandoned that contention, inasmuch as he failed to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion or to object to the admission of that evidence at trial (see People v Smith, 13 AD3d 1121, 1122 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 803 [2005]; People v Smikle, 1 AD3d 883, 884 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 634 [2004]; see generally People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [1980]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see People v Smith, 32 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 849 [2007]) and, in any event, that contention is without merit. The prosecutor’s comments were either a fair response to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v McCauley, 19 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 808 [2005]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]).
Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court did not abuse its discretion in trying and sentencing him in absentia. Based on the record before us, we conclude that defendant had received the requisite warnings pursuant to People v Parker (57 NY2d 136, 141 [1982]) and was informed that the trial would commence on a certain date. We thus conclude that defendant waived his right to be present at trial and at sentencing (see People v Jones, 31 AD3d 1193 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 868 [2006]; People v Almonte, 210 AD2d 911 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 859 [1995]; People v Daley, 207 AD2d 1000 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1010 [1994]). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.