People v. Medina, 284 A.D.2d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
People v. Medina, 284 A.D.2d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Dior Z.J. (Dior J.) (nyappdiv, 2016-05-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dior Z.J. (Dior J.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Care of N.Y., P.C., 122 AD3d 595, 596 [2014]; Sweet v Rios, 113 AD3d 750, 752 [2014]; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v Shirley U., 266 AD2d 459, 459-460 [1999]; see also People v Johnson, 82 AD3d 415, 415 [2011]; People v Medina, 284 AD2d 122, 122 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Central National Bank, Canajoharie v. Scotty's Auto Sales, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although Amidon proffered evidence indicating that the bankruptcy trustee was aware of the existence of such claims, it is settled that “ ‘actual knowledge by a trustee of a claim is not a substitute for proper scheduling’ ” (Rudin v Hospital for Joint Diseases, 34 AD3d 376 , 376 [2006], quoting Burton v 215 E. *1265 77th Assoc., 284 AD2d 122, 122 [2001]; see Bromley v Fleet Bank, 240 AD2d 611, 612 [1997]; Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Anthony Medina
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 5, 2001.
284 A.D.2d 122
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5709
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered May 14, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Issues of credibility were properly presented to the jury and there is no reason to disturb its determinations.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly assisted the prosecutor during the suppression hearing is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s advice to the prosecutor that he should elicit additional testimony was entirely appropriate (see, People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944; People v Soto, 210 AD2d 5, lv denied 84 NY2d 1039).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.[*123] Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mázzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.