People v. Jones, 282 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Jones, 282 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Gray (nyappdiv, 2012-02-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gray
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to a new trial, to be preceded by a hearing to determine whether an independent source exists to support the in-court identifications of the defendant by the two witnesses who made the lineup identifications (s ee People v Gethers, 86 NY2d at 161-163 ; People v Dodt, 61 NY2d at 417 ; People v Kennedy, 282 AD2d 759, 760 [2001]; People v Brown, 256 AD2d 414, 416 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bradshaw
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
While probable cause does not require the same quantum of proof necessary to support a conviction (see People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; People v McCray, 51 NY2d 594, 602 [1980]), it does require the existence of facts and circumstances which, viewed together, would lead a reasonable person possessing the same expertise as the arresting officer to conclude that an offense has been or is being committed, and that the defendant committed or is committing that offense (see People v Kennedy, 282 AD2d 759, 760 [2001]; People v Dawkins, 163 AD2d at 324 ; People v White, 117 AD2d 127, 131 [1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Aliya M.
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Queens Cty. · 2007 · confidence medium
Thus, where testimony concerning an out-of-court identification procedure has been suppressed due to the suggestiveness of the identification procedure, the prosecution is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification to be made by the witness is based upon the witness's independent observation of the perpetrator ( People v. Ballott , at 606-607; People v. Rahming , at 417 ; People v. Young , at 44 ; People v. Radcliffe , 273 AD2d 483, 484 [2000]; People v. Williams , 222 AD2d 149, 152 [1996], lv. denied 88 NY2d 1072 [1996]; People v. Webster , 248 AD2…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Richards
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
However, the People offered no evidence at the hearing to demonstrate how she came to know that there were weapons in the vehicle, and therefore the People’s evidence failed to satisfy the basis-of-knowledge prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test (see People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 350 [1994]; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423-424 [1985]; People v Kennedy, 282 AD2d 759, 760 [2001]; People v Diaz, 274 AD2d 589 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Christopher Jones
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 30, 2001.
282 A.D.2d 759
Published

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 2, 1995 (People v Jones, 220 AD2d 456), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 19, 1994.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see, Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745). Ritter, J. P„, McGinity, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.