People v. Stewart, 111 A.D.3d 1395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
People v. Stewart, 111 A.D.3d 1395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …cannot be deemed a denial thereof at p. 1396
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Desius (nyappdiv, 2019-12-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Desius
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Although defendant raised that issue at sentencing, the record " does not reflect that the court ever ruled on . . . defendant's motion, and a failure to rule on a motion cannot be deemed a denial thereof' " ( People v Stewart , 111 AD3d 1395, 1396 [4th Dept 2013]; see generally People v Concepcion , 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Matthews
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on the record with respect to this aspect of defendant’s omnibus motion (see People v Blair, 121 AD3d 1570, 1571-1572 [2014]; People v Stewart, 111 AD3d 1395, 1396 [2013]; People v Jones, 103 AD3d 1215, 1217 [2013], lv dismissed 21 NY3d 944 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The order addressed only that part of defendant’s motion requesting testing on the washcloth, however, and Supreme Court’s failure to rule on the other parts of defendant’s motion “ ‘cannot be deemed a denial thereof’ ” (People v Stewart, 111 AD3d 1395, 1396 [2013]; see People v Santana, 101 AD3d 1664 , 1664 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1103 [2013]; see generally People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The order addressed only that part of defendant’s motion requesting testing on the washcloth, however, and Supreme Court’s failure to rule on the other parts of defendant’s motion “ ‘cannot be deemed a denial thereof’ ” (People v Stewart, 111 AD3d 1395, 1396 [2013]; see People v Santana, 101 AD3d 1664 , 1664 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1103 [2013]; see generally People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Lewis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
Inasmuch as County Court's failure to rule on that part of defendant's motion "cannot be deemed a denial thereof" ( People v Jones , 114 AD3d 1272 , 1272 [4th Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Stewart , 111 AD3d 1395, 1396 [4th Dept 2013]; see also People v Santana , 101 AD3d 1664 , 1664 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1103 [2013]; see generally People v Concepcion , 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]), we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a determination whether " there was a reasonable probability that, had th[e rape kit, shirt an…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Wilson Stewart
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 15, 2013.
111 A.D.3d 1395
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered July 9, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a[*1396] nonjury verdict of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [2]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]), defendant contends, inter alia, that County Court erred in failing to rule on that part of his pretrial motion seeking inspection of the grand jury minutes to determine whether the grand jury proceedings were defective. We agree. “The record does not reflect that the court ever ruled on [that part of] defendant’s motion, and a failure to rule on a motion cannot be deemed a denial thereof’ (People v Jones, 103 AD3d 1215, 1217 [2013], lv dismissed 21 NY3d 944 [2013]; see generally People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to decide that part of defendant’s motion. Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.