G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…failed to request additional relief when the supreme court sustained objections or provided curative instructions
at p. 1112
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hankerson
In any event, any improper comments did not, singly or in combination, deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Garcia-Villegas, 78 AD3d 727, 728 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Browne
The hearing court properly determined that the defendant’s statements were voluntary and spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent (see People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; People v Bajana, *835 82 AD3d 1111, 1111 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bell
The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to certain comments the prosecutor made on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because the defendant failed to object to the comments he now challenges (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]), or failed to request additional relief when the trial court sustained objections or provided curative instructions (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Damon, 78 AD3d 860, 861 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gatewood
To the extent that the defendant contends that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient, there is no appellate review of this issue as the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Birot, 99 AD3d 933, 934 [2012]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Nelson
However, the defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he failed to object to the comments he now challenges (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]), or failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained objections or provided curative instructions (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Damon, 78 AD3d 860 [2010]; People v Hollenquest, 48 AD3d 592, 593 [2008]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Herring
The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor made improper comments on summation is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not object to the comments he *959 now challenges (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ambers
The defendant’s contention that various comments made by the prosecutor during her summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either did not object to the remarks at issue, made only a general objection, or failed to request further curative relief or make a timely motion for a mistrial on the specific grounds now asserted on appeal when the trial court sustained his objections or provided curative instructions (see People v Barton, 110 AD3d 1089 [2013]; People v O’Keefe, 105 AD3d 1062 , 1064 [2013]; People v Bajana, 82 AD…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ambers
The defendant’s contention that various comments made by the prosecutor during her summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either did not object to the remarks at issue, made only a general objection, or failed to request further curative relief or make a timely motion for a mistrial on the specific grounds now asserted on appeal when the trial court sustained his objections or provided curative instructions (see People v Barton, 110 AD3d 1089 [2013]; People v O’Keefe, 105 AD3d 1062 , 1064 [2013]; People v Bajana, 82 AD…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Belle
The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor made improper comments on summation is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel did not object to the comments the defendant now challenges on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Belle
The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor made improper comments on summation is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel did not object to the comments the defendant now challenges on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hoke
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he raised no objection to certain challenged comments, made general objections to other challenged comments without alerting the trial court to his specific claims now raised on appeal and, when his objections to the remaining challenged comments were sustained, he failed to seek any further curative relief or move for a mistrial (see People v Brooks, 89 AD3d 746, 747 [2011]; People v Bajana, …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hoke
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he raised no objection to certain challenged comments, made general objections to other challenged comments without alerting the trial court to his specific claims now raised on appeal and, when his objections to the remaining challenged comments were sustained, he failed to seek any further curative relief or move for a mistrial (see People v Brooks, 89 AD3d 746, 747 [2011]; People v Bajana, …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Barton
Since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, there can be no appellate review of the defendant’s claim, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Barton
Since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, there can be no appellate review of the defendant’s claim, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. O'Keefe
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and, thus, deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he either raised no objection at all, or made general objections without alerting the trial court to his specific claims now raised on appeal or, when his objections were sustained, he failed to seek any further curative relief or move for a mistrial (see People v Brooks, 89 AD3d 746, 747 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. O'Keefe
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and, thus, deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he either raised no objection at all, or made general objections without alerting the trial court to his specific claims now raised on appeal or, when his objections were sustained, he failed to seek any further curative relief or move for a mistrial (see People v Brooks, 89 AD3d 746, 747 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Tiro
The defendant either did not object to the comments and slides he now challenges, made only general objections, or “failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained objections or provided curative instructions” (People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Ahmed, 40 AD3d 869, 869 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Tiro
The defendant either did not object to the comments and slides he now challenges, made only general objections, or “failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained objections or provided curative instructions” (People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Ahmed, 40 AD3d 869, 869 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Birot
“Since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, there can be no appellate review of the defendant’s claim that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient” (People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Birot
“Since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, there can be no appellate review of the defendant’s claim that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient” (People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rodney
The defendant’s objections were general, one-word objections (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d at 839-840 ; People v Salnave, 41 AD 3d 872, 874 [2007]), and he failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained his objections (see People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d at 874 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rodney
The defendant’s objections were general, one-word objections (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d at 839-840 ; People v Salnave, 41 AD 3d 872, 874 [2007]), and he failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained his objections (see People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d at 874 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Flowers
To the extent the defendant contends that, as a result, the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to indict the defendant for crimes allegedly committed on January 17, 2008, the contention is not reviewable on this appeal, since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1037 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Parker, 74 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2010]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Flowers
To the extent the defendant contends that, as a result, the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to indict the defendant for crimes allegedly committed on January 17, 2008, the contention is not reviewable on this appeal, since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Oliver, 87 AD3d 1035, 1037 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Parker, 74 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2010]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brooks
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and, thus, deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he made only a general objection to one of the comments he now challenges (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Nunez, 82 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2011]), and did not object to the other comments he now challenges (see People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Oliver
The defendant’s contention that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient is not reviewable on this appeal, since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 791 [2011]; People v Parker, 74 AD3d 1365, 1366 [2010]; People v Capehart, 61 AD3d 885, 886 [2009]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Singletary
This statement was spontaneous and "not triggered by any police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit an incriminating [*2]response" ( People v Stephans , 168 AD3d 990 , 995; see People v Bajana , 82 AD3d 1111, 1111 ; People v Tyrell , 67 AD3d 827, 828 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Morales
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly concluded that the defendant’s statements were voluntary, and that the defendant “spoke with genuine spontaneity ‘and not [as] the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed’ ” (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 479 [1982], quoting People v Maerling, 46 NY2d 289, 302-303 [1978]; see People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111 [2011]; People v Tyrell, 67 AD3d 827, 828 [2009]; People v Ayers, 43 AD3d 1071, 1071-1072 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Victor Bajana
v.
Victor Bajana
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 22, 2011.
Cited by 35 opinions | Published
The evidence presented at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant (see CPL 140.10 [1] [b]; People v Rios, 11 AD3d 641 [2004]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence that was discovered incident to his arrest. Moreover, since the defendant did not seek to reopen the suppression hearing based on the trial testimony, or move for a mistrial, the question of whether the trial testimony undermined the hearing court’s determination is not properly before this Court (see People v Moss, 67 AD3d 1027 [2009]). Furthermore, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the statement he made to a law enforcement officer. Volunteered statements are admissible, provided that the defendant, as here, “spoke with genuine spontaneity ‘and not [as] the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed’ ” (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 479 [1982],[*1112] quoting People v Maerling, 46 NY2d 289, 302-303 [1978]; see People v Tyrell, 67 AD3d 827, 828 [2009]).
The defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of certain allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor on summation. The defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) because he failed to object to the comments he now challenges (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Damon, 78 AD3d 860 [2010]), or failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained objections or provided curative instructions (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Damon, 78 AD3d 860 [2010]; People v Hollenquest, 48 AD3d 592, 593 [2008]). In any event, reversal is not warranted because the prosecutor’s remarks did not, singly or in combination, deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Garcia-Villegas, 78 AD3d 727, 728 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 953 [2010]; People v Dunbar, 74 AD3d 1227, 1229 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; People v Hendrix, 60 AD3d 1081, 1082-1083 [2009]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]). Defense counsel’s failure to object to allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor on summation did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174 [2003]; People v Cass, 79 AD3d 768 [2010]; People v Lopez, 69 AD3d 958 [2010]). Moreover, the record reveals that defense counsel otherwise provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
Since the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, there can be no appellate review of the defendant’s claim that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or involve matter which is dehors the record. Covello, J.P, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.