G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…indication that the defense was impaired by reason of the delay
at p. 1538
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Stefanovich
There is no indication that the "delay was caused by any bad faith on the part of the People" ( People v Perez , 85 AD3d 1538, 1539 [4th Dept 2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lanfranco
Here, although the People indeed proffered no reason for the 10-month delay, delays of similar lengths have been found not to violate due process (see People v Weatherspoon, 86 AD3d 792, 792-793 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 905 [2011] [nine-month delay]; People v Striplin, 48 AD3d 878, 879 [2008], lv denied. 10 NY3d 871 [2008] [9V2-month delay]; People v Hernandez, 42 AD3d 657, 662 [2007] [14-month delay]; People v Irvis, 301 AD2d 782, 783-784 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 655 [2003] [10-month delay]), the charge at issue implicated “the safety and security of the detention facility and its employe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rivera
The court properly determined, following a hearing, that the People established good cause for the 13-month preindictment delay (see generally People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241 , 254 [1978]; People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1538-1539 [2011]; People v Cody, 30 AD3d 1068, 1068-1069 [2006]), and that there was no “indication that the defense [was] impaired by reason of the delay” (People v Vernace, 96 NY2d 886, 887 [2001]; cf. People v Romeo, 12 NY3d 51, 58 [2009], cert denied 558 US 817 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rivera
The court properly determined, following a hearing, that the People established good cause for the 13-month preindictment delay (see generally People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241 , 254 [1978]; People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1538-1539 [2011]; People v Cody, 30 AD3d 1068, 1068-1069 [2006]), and that there was no “indication that the defense [was] impaired by reason of the delay” (People v Vernace, 96 NY2d 886, 887 [2001]; cf. People v Romeo, 12 NY3d 51, 58 [2009], cert denied 558 US 817 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Green
Even assuming, without deciding, that removing defendant from his cell and escorting him to the facility’s recreation room pending the cell search 9 entailed an “added [level of] constraint” that, in turn, would lead defendant to reasonably believe “that there [had] been a restriction on [his] freedom over and above that of ordinary confinement in a correctional facility” (People v Alls, 83 NY2d 94, 100 [1993], cert denied 511 US 1090 [1994]), thereby triggering the need for Miranda warnings (compare People v Gause, 50 AD3d 1392 , 1393 [2008], People v Brown, 49 AD3d 1345, 1346 [2008…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Green
Even assuming, without deciding, that removing defendant from his cell and escorting him to the facility’s recreation room pending the cell search 9 entailed an “added [level of] constraint” that, in turn, would lead defendant to reasonably believe “that there [had] been a restriction on [his] freedom over and above that of ordinary confinement in a correctional facility” (People v Alls, 83 NY2d 94, 100 [1993], cert denied 511 US 1090 [1994]), thereby triggering the need for Miranda warnings (compare People v Gause, 50 AD3d 1392 , 1393 [2008], People v Brown, 49 AD3d 1345, 1346 [2008…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Irvin
Defendant failed to preserve for our review any contention regarding the failure to comply with the procedural require ments of CPL 400.21 (see People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Irvin
Defendant failed to preserve for our review any contention regarding the failure to comply with the procedural require ments of CPL 400.21 (see People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Washington
In any event, “defendant waived strict compliance with that statute by admitting the prior felony conviction in open court” (Butler, 96 AD3d at 1368 ; see People v Guillory, 98 AD3d 835, 836 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 932 [2012]; People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Washington
In any event, “defendant waived strict compliance with that statute by admitting the prior felony conviction in open court” (Butler, 96 AD3d at 1368 ; see People v Guillory, 98 AD3d 835, 836 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 932 [2012]; People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Guillory
In any event, by admitting in open court that he had been convicted of a prior felony offense in New York within the past 10 years, defendant waived strict compliance with CPL 400.21 (see People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]; People v Vega, 49 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Guillory
In any event, by admitting in open court that he had been convicted of a prior felony offense in New York within the past 10 years, defendant waived strict compliance with CPL 400.21 (see People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]; People v Vega, 49 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Motzer
We conclude that defendant waived her contentions (see generally People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 311 [1985], rearg denied 67 NY2d 647 [1986]; People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Motzer
We conclude that defendant waived her contentions (see generally People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 311 [1985], rearg denied 67 NY2d 647 [1986]; People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Butler
In any event, defendant waived strict compliance with that statute by admitting the prior felony conviction in open court (see People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]; People v Vega, 49 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Butler
In any event, defendant waived strict compliance with that statute by admitting the prior felony conviction in open court (see People v Perez, 85 AD3d 1538, 1541 [2011]; People v Vega, 49 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Collier
In any event, we conclude that defendant, "by admitting in open court that he had been convicted of a prior felony offense in New York within the past 10 years, . . . waived strict compliance with CPL 400.21" ( People v Guillory , 98 AD3d 835 , 836 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 932 [2012]; see Perez , 85 AD3d at 1541; People v Vega , 49 AD3d 1185, 1186 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kenneth J. Williams, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Charlee C. Fetzner
v.
Lattimore Road Surgicenter, Inc., and John D. Marquardt, M.D.
v.
Lattimore Road Surgicenter, Inc., and John D. Marquardt, M.D.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 10, 2011.
Published
Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered April 13, 2010. The order and judgment, inter alia, dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict.
It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.