Lankenau v. Boles, 119 A.D.3d 1406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Lankenau v. Boles, 119 A.D.3d 1406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Taylor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court erred in failing sua sponte to reopen the suppression hearing ( see People v Angona , 119 AD3d 1406, 1407 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 987 [2015]; People v Highsmith , 259 AD2d 1006, 1007 [4th Dept 1999]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Mancuso
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was not impaired by the prosecutor's failure to instruct the grand jurors on the defense of temporary innocent possession of a weapon. "[T]here is no requirement that the [g]rand [j]ury must be charged with every potential defense suggested [in] evidence," but, rather, the People are required to charge "only those defenses that the evidence will reasonably support" ( People v Moses , 197 AD3d 951, 952 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1097 [2021], reconsideration denied 37 NY3d 1163 [2022] [internal quotati…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Gallo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: accord · confidence high
Given that defendant’s respective motions were brought pursuant to — and ultimately resolved under — decidedly different statutes, we do not find that County Court abused its discretion in declining to apply the law of the case doctrine to this matter. *984 Turning to the merits, while there is no requirement that the grand jury “be charged with every potential defense suggested by the evidence” (People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38 [1984]), the People “must charge . . . those defenses that the evidence will reasonably support” (People v Coleman, 4 AD3d 677, 678 [2004], lvs denied 2 N…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Laura Lankenau
v.
Patrick K. Boles
Appeal No. 2.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 11, 2014.
119 A.D.3d 1406
Carni, Centra, Lindley, Peradotto, Whalen.
Published

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered June 25, 2013. The order denied the motion of plaintiff for leave to reargue her motion to dismiss certain affirmative defenses of defendants.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs (see Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984 [1990]).

Present — Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Carni, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.