Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Serrano
(2×)
Defendant, while seeking dismissal of the indictment "on the general ground that the grand jury proceeding was defective, . . . failed to set forth the specific ground[s] for dismissal now set forth on appeal" (<i>People v Nesmith</i>, 242 AD3d 1564 , 1565 [4th Dept 2025], <i>lv denied</i> 44 NY3d 1067 [2026]; <i>see </i>CPL 470.05 [2];<i> People v Brown</i>, 81 NY2d 798, 798 [1993]).</p> <p>Defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the court erred in failing to preclude a police investigator's testimony as a sanction for the People's failure to disclose photograp…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Butler
As defendant correctly concedes, his contentions concerning prosecutorial misconduct are not preserved for our review ( see People v Fick , 167 AD3d 1484 , 1485 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 948 [2019]; People v Brown , 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]; see generally People v Tonge , 93 NY2d 838, 839-840 [1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Keels
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during examination of one of the People’s witnesses and during summation (see People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Keels
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during examination of one of the People’s witnesses and during summation (see People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Goupil
We also conclude that defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during summation (see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Goupil
We also conclude that defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during summation (see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santiago
The vast majority of the alleged improprieties are unpreserved for our review because defendant either failed to object to them or she raised only general objections (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Santiago
The vast majority of the alleged improprieties are unpreserved for our review because defendant either failed to object to them or she raised only general objections (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Leggett
Defendant did not object to comments made by the prosecu tor during summation and thus also failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by those comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Leggett
Defendant did not object to comments made by the prosecu tor during summation and thus also failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by those comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gaston
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that certain comments in the prosecutor’s opening and closing statements deprived him of a fair trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]), and in any event his contention is without merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gaston
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that certain comments in the prosecutor’s opening and closing statements deprived him of a fair trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 94 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]), and in any event his contention is without merit.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jose B. Carrasquillo
v.
Jose B. Carrasquillo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 20, 2012.
Published
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered September 27, 2010. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Bindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.