Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mack
"The inclusion of a third-party benefit in a plea bargain is simply one factor for a . . . court to weigh in making the overall determination whether the plea is voluntarily entered" ( People v Fiumefreddo , 82 NY2d 536, 545 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and connected pleas "present concerns requiring special care" ( People v Santos , 244 AD2d 897, 897 [4th Dept 1997]) .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Price
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Upon weighing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the record establishes that defendant's plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently ( see Fiumefreddo , 82 NY2d at 545-547 ; Schrecengost , 273 AD2d at 938 ; Santos , 244 AD2d at 897).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Price
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Upon weighing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the record establishes that defendant's plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently ( see Fiumefreddo , 82 NY2d at 545-547 ; Schrecengost , 273 AD2d at 938 ; Santos , 244 AD2d at 897).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Isaacs
The defendant’s affidavit, in which he stated that he lived in an apartment with his fiancee, established that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment and, thus, had standing to challenge the search of the apartment and the seizure of a gun (see Minnesota v Carter, 525 US 83, 88-89 [1998]; People v Adams, 244 AD2d 897, 898 [1997]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Isaacs
The defendant’s affidavit, in which he stated that he lived in an apartment with his fiancee, established that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment and, thus, had standing to challenge the search of the apartment and the seizure of a gun (see Minnesota v Carter, 525 US 83, 88-89 [1998]; People v Adams, 244 AD2d 897, 898 [1997]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MAY, DONALD M., PEOPLE v
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the police officer’s general statements concerning cooperation were not “ ‘reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response’ ” and thus did not constitute interrogation (People v Brown, 52 AD3d 1175, 1176 , lv denied 11 NY3d 923 , quoting Rhode Island v Innis, 446 US 291, 301 ; see People v Adams, 244 AD2d 897, 898-899 , lv denied 91 NY2d 887 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. May
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the police officer’s general statements concerning cooperation were not “ ‘reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response’ ” and thus did not constitute interrogation (People v Brown, 52 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], quoting Rhode Island v Innis, 446 US 291, 301 [1980]; see People v Adams, 244 AD2d 897 , 898-899 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 887 [1998]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. May
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the police officer’s general statements concerning cooperation were not “ ‘reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response’ ” and thus did not constitute interrogation (People v Brown, 52 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], quoting Rhode Island v Innis, 446 US 291, 301 [1980]; see People v Adams, 244 AD2d 897 , 898-899 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 887 [1998]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Linnen v. Poole
Compare with People v. Adams, 244 A.D.2d 897, 899 , 665 N.Y.S.2d 991, 993 (App.Div. 4th Dept.1997) (When defendant asked a police detective whether the police could “do anything for him”, the detective responded that he could not negotiate a deal but that he would inform the District Attorney that defendant was willing to cooperate.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Linnen v. Poole
Compare with People v. Adams, 244 A.D.2d 897, 899 , 665 N.Y.S.2d 991, 993 (App.Div. 4th Dept.1997) (When defendant asked a police detective whether the police could “do anything for him”, the detective responded that he could not negotiate a deal but that he would inform the District Attorney that defendant was willing to cooperate.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Emil W. Chandler
v.
Emil W. Chandler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 19, 1997.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that his sentence is unduly harsh or severe does not survive the knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761, 763; People v Stewart, 222 AD2d 1111, lv denied 87 NY2d 977). Because defendant failed to make a motion for permission to file and serve a pro se supplemental brief within 35 days of the mailing of assigned counsels brief to him, defendant’s request for permission to file a pro se supplemental brief is denied as untimely (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.13 [j]). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.