People v. Bulgin, 105 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Bulgin, 105 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Williams (nyappdiv, 2014-06-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
We reject that contention inasmuch as “defendant’s signature acknowledging receipt of the order of protection establishes that it was served and that [s]he was on notice as to its contents” (People v Soler, 52 AD3d 938, 940 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 741 [2008]; cf. People v Bulgin, 105 AD3d 551, 551 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1002 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
We reject that contention inasmuch as “defendant’s signature acknowledging receipt of the order of protection establishes that it was served and that [s]he was on notice as to its contents” (People v Soler, 52 AD3d 938, 940 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 741 [2008]; cf. People v Bulgin, 105 AD3d 551, 551 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1002 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Lawrence
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Those charges are not related to the handgun and instead arose from defendant's conduct while in police custody after being transported to the police station, and we conclude that there is no "reasonable possibility that the evidence supporting the . . . tainted counts influenced the guilty verdicts on the other [counts]" ( People v Sinha , 19 NY3d 932, 934 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Bulgin , 105 AD3d 551, 551 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1002 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Allen (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In this case, notably, the evidence introduced in support of the murder count pertained to the same criminal transaction and was otherwise entirely admissible in support of the manslaughter count, suggesting an absence of spillover prejudice ( see People v Williams , 292 AD2d 474, 475 [2d Dept 2002]; see also People v Bulgin , 105 AD3d 551, 551 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1002 [2013] [tainted count and other counts "stemmed from the same incident"; no spillover error]; compare People v Morales , 20 NY3d at 250 [introduction of numerous other alleged assaults, murders and other criminal …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Delroy Bulgin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 16, 2013.
105 A.D.3d 551
Abdus, Clark, Daniels, Degrasse, Manzanet, Mazzarelli, Salaam.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered March 29, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal mischief in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree, and sentencing him to time served and a conditional discharge, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the contempt conviction and dismissing that count of the indictment, and otherwise affirmed.

The People failed to prove that defendant had written or oral notice of an order of protection and its contents, as required for a conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree (People v McCowan, 85 NY2d 985, 987 [1995]; Penal Law § 215.51 [d]). While the order contained check marks of unidentified origin indicating that defendant was present in court and was advised of the “issuance” of the order, defendant’s signature was not on the order (compare People v Inserra, 4 NY3d 30, 31-33 [2004]; People v D'Angelo, 284 AD2d 146, 146 [1st Dept 2001], affd 98 NY2d 733 [2002]), and there was no evidence establishing that defendant was present in court and orally advised of the prohibited conduct (compare People v Clark, 95 NY2d 773 [2000]).

Contrary to defendant’s assertions, there was no spillover error onto the criminal mischief conviction. There is no reasonable possibility that the contempt count influenced the guilty verdict on the criminal mischief count in any meaningful way (see People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197 [2011]; People v Daly, 14 NY3d 848 [2010]). Both convictions stemmed from the same incident, in which defendant intentionally sideswiped and damaged the victim’s van while she and her fiancé were inside. However, proof of defendant’s guilt of criminal mischief had nothing to do with his knowledge of the order of protection. There was strong independent proof of defendant’s guilt of criminal mischief provided by the victim, her fiancé, and the police officer who pursued and arrested defendant.

In light of this determination, we find it unnecessary to address defendant’s remaining contentions.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.