People v. Ureña, 84 A.D.3d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ureña, 84 A.D.3d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
Kings Criminal Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
Moreover, while the court may preclude alibi witness testimony when there is late alibi notice and no good cause shown for the delay in notice ( People v Wilborn , 164 AD3d 530 [2d Dept], lv denied 32 NY3d 1069 [2018]; People v Wahhab , 84 AD3d 982, 984 [2d Dept], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Reyes , 49 AD3d 565 [2d Dept], lv denied 10 NY3d 869 [2008]), the court should first try to fashion a lesser sanction that is proportional to the harm caused to the People by the belated alibi disclosure ( People v Green , 70 AD3d 39, 44 [2d dept 2009]; People v Cuevas , 67 AD2d 219, 224-226 [1s…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Polancobatista
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The remaining information contained in the application for the search warrant was sufficient to establish the requisite probable cause (see People v Murray, 136 AD3d 714, 714 [2016]; People v Wahhab, 84 AD3d 982, 983 [2011]; People v Levy, 65 AD3d 1057 , 1057-1058 [2009], affd 15 NY3d 510 [2010]; People v Cassese, 58 AD3d 639, 639 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Crevelle
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Indeed, appellate courts have routinely upheld a trial court’s decision, pursuant to CPL 250.20 (3), to preclude a defendant from calling alibi witnesses who were not noticed pursuant to CPL 250.20 (1) and where no good cause was *998 shown for the delay (see People v Wahhab, 84 AD3d 982, 984 [2011]; People v Reyes, 49 AD3d 565, 566 [2008]; People v Morgan, 48 AD3d 703, 704 [2008]; People v Louisias, 29 AD3d 1017, 1019 [2006]; People v Harrison, 28 AD3d at 582 ; People v Tucker, 21 AD3d at 388 ; People v Walker, 294 AD2d 218, 219 [2002]; People v Mensche, 276 AD2d 834, 836 [2000]; People v A…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Juan Ureña
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 10, 2011.
84 A.D.3d 982
Published

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed March 26, 2010, pursuant to CPL 440.46, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on June 25, 1997.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in resentencing the defendant to a determinate term of imprisonment of five years, with two years of postrelease supervision (see People v Tutt, 82 AD3d 1273 [2011]; People v Newton, 48 AD3d 115, 119-120 [2007]). Under the circumstances of this case, the resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Tutt, 82 AD3d 1273 [2011]; People v Almanzar, 43 AD3d 825, 826 [2007]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85 [1982]). Prudenti, PJ., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.