Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kaval
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summations were improper and deprived him of a fair trial are unpreserved for appellate review since he either failed to timely object to the remarks he now challenges or made only general objections (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Arena, 70 AD3d 1044, 1047 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lau
CPL 270.35 (1) provides that “[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict. . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature . . . the court must discharge such juror.” The “ ‘grossly unqualified’ ” standard “ ‘is satisfied only when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict’ ” (People v Porter, 77 AD3d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
CPL 270.35 (1) provides that “[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict. . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature . . . the court must discharge such juror.” The “ ‘grossly unqualified’ ” standard “ ‘is satisfied only when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict’ ” (People v Porter, 77 AD3d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Licausi
However, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial (see People v Reaves, 112 AD3d 746, 747-748 [2013]; People v Brown, 76 AD3d 532 , 533 [2010]; People v Arena, 70 AD3d 1044, 1046-1047 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jorgensen
The defendant’s claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during her opening statement and summation were improper and denied her a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review since she either failed to object to the remarks she now challenges, made only a general objection, objected on grounds other than those currently raised, or failed to request additional instructions when the court gave curative instructions, and she failed to move for a mistrial on the specific grounds she now asserts on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Arena, 70 AD3d 1044, 1047 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jorgensen
The defendant’s claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during her opening statement and summation were improper and denied her a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review since she either failed to object to the remarks she now challenges, made only a general objection, objected on grounds other than those currently raised, or failed to request additional instructions when the court gave curative instructions, and she failed to move for a mistrial on the specific grounds she now asserts on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Arena, 70 AD3d 1044, 1047 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Johnson
In any event, CPL 270.35 (1) provides that “[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature . . . the court must discharge such juror.” The “grossly unqualified” standard “is satisfied only when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict” (People v Porter, 77 AD3d …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Janice Patricia Williams
v.
Curtis Lee Selby
v.
Curtis Lee Selby
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 23, 2010.
Published
—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act articles 4 and 5-B, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated July 25, 2008, which denied, as untimely, her objections to an order of the same court (Weir-Reeves, S.M.), dated April 24, 2008, dismissing her petition for a downward modification of her child support obligation.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On appeal, the mother does not challenge the Family Court’s denial of her objections to a Support Magistrate’s determination concerning issues of child support as untimely filed (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Lombardo v Thomas, 53 AD3d 549 [2008]; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 [2007]). In any event, we note that the Family Court correctly determined that the objections were untimely. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.