People v. Adams, 96 A.D.3d 1588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Adams, 96 A.D.3d 1588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Adams (nyappdiv, 2013-05-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Adams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We previously held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether testimony concerning the pretrial identification by the robbery victim from a photo array should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal detention or arrest (People v Adams, 96 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Adams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We previously held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether testimony concerning the pretrial identification by the robbery victim from a photo array should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal detention or arrest (People v Adams, 96 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Coles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to determine whether the evidence and statement should be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal entry (see People v Adams, 96 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012]; see generally People v Muhammad, 17 NY3d 532, 547 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Coles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to determine whether the evidence and statement should be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal entry (see People v Adams, 96 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012]; see generally People v Muhammad, 17 NY3d 532, 547 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dark
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“There is no indication in the record, however, that the court ruled on the motion; i.e., the court neither granted nor denied it on the record before us” (People v Chattley, 89 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2011]). “ ‘CPL 470.15 (1) precludes [this Court] from reviewing an issue that was either decided in an appellant’s favor or was not decided by the trial court’ ” (People v Adams, 96 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012], quoting People v Ingram, 18 NY3d 948, 949 [2012]), “and thus the court’s failure to rule on the motion cannot be deemed a denial thereof’ (Chattley, 89 AD3d at 1558 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dark
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“There is no indication in the record, however, that the court ruled on the motion; i.e., the court neither granted nor denied it on the record before us” (People v Chattley, 89 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2011]). “ ‘CPL 470.15 (1) precludes [this Court] from reviewing an issue that was either decided in an appellant’s favor or was not decided by the trial court’ ” (People v Adams, 96 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012], quoting People v Ingram, 18 NY3d 948, 949 [2012]), “and thus the court’s failure to rule on the motion cannot be deemed a denial thereof’ (Chattley, 89 AD3d at 1558 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carr
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s identity as the shooter (see People v Adams, 96 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carr
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s identity as the shooter (see People v Adams, 96 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Hicks
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
We agree with defendant, however, that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass her challenge to the severity of the sentence because County Court did not advise defendant, at the time of the plea, of the potential term of incarceration that she could face if she was unsuccessful upon diversion to drug court ( see People v Leiser , 124 AD3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2015]; see generally People v Villafane , 96 AD3d 1588, 1588 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1029 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Marquil L. Adams
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 15, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 1588
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered November 29, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting[*1589] him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators of the robbery (see People v Brown, 92 AD3d 1216-1217 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 992 [2012]). We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence on the issue of identification (see People v Young, 74 AD3d 1471, 1472 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 811 [2010]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Defendant also contends that the pretrial identification by the robbery victim from a photo array should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest (see generally People v Hill, 53 AD3d 1151, 1151 [2008]; People v Robinson, 282 AD2d 75, 79-82 [2001]). In its ruling on defendant’s suppression motion, Supreme Court concluded that the photo array procedure was not unduly suggestive, but failed to address the legality of defendant’s detention or arrest. “CPL 470.15 (1) precludes [this Court] from reviewing an issue that was either decided in an appellant’s favor or was not decided by the trial court” (People v Ingram, 18 NY3d 948, 949 [2012]; see People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]). Thus, we may not resolve defendant’s contention regarding a theory not addressed by the court. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether the identification testimony should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal detention or arrest (see generally People v Chattley, 89 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2011]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.