People v. McKnight, 284 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. McKnight, 284 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …because that contention was not raised in defendant's pretrial omnibus motion or at the suppression hearing, it has not been preserved for our review ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …that contention was not raised in defendant's pretrial omnibus motion or at the suppression hearing, it has not been preserved for our review at p. 941 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Whorley (nyappdiv, 2015-02-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Whorley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as “that contention was not raised in defendant’s pretrial omnibus motion or at the suppression hearing, it has not been preserved for our review” (People v King, 284 AD2d 941, 941 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 920 [2001]; see People v Turner, 96 AD3d 1392, 1393 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1002 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Whorley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as “that contention was not raised in defendant’s pretrial omnibus motion or at the suppression hearing, it has not been preserved for our review” (People v King, 284 AD2d 941, 941 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 920 [2001]; see People v Turner, 96 AD3d 1392, 1393 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1002 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dozier
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Here, the proof with regard to each victim was “straightforward and easily segregated” (id.; see People v Lovett, 303 AD2d 952 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 584 [2003]; People v McKnight, 284 AD2d 941, 941-942 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 921 [2001]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Peterkin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant contended in support of severance only that he did not wish to testify concerning certain counts but wished to testify concerning others, and he “failed to make a ‘convincing showing that [he had] both important testimony to give’ concerning . . . [certain counts] and ‘a genuine need to refrain from testifying’ ” concerning other counts (People v Owens, 256 AD2d 1220, 1221 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 877 , 880 [1999], quoting CPL 200.20 [3] [b]; see People v McKnight, 284 AD2d 941, 942 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 921 [2001]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Lovett
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, the evidence presented by the People with respect to each of the four incidents was “straightforward and easily segregated” (Daymon, 239 AD2d at 908 ; see People v McKnight, 284 AD2d 941, 942 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 921 [2001]), and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that he would be “unduly and genuinely prejudiced by the joint trial of the charges” (People v Brown, 254 AD2d 781, 782 [1998] , lv denied 92 NY2d 1029 [1998]; see People v O’Connor, 242 AD2d 908 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 895 [1998]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Quinton McKnight
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 8, 2001.
284 A.D.2d 941
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5859
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the motion court erred in denying his motion to sever counts one through three of the indictment from counts four through eight because different victims were involved (see, CPL 200.20 [3] [a], [b]). Defendant failed to establish that there was “ [substantially more proof on one or more [of the] joinable offenses than on others and there [was] a substantial likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the[*942] proof as it relate[d] to each offense” (CPL 200.20 [3] [a]). The proof with respect to each victim “was straightforward and easily divisible” (People v Jones, 236 AD2d 846, lv denied 90 NY2d 859). In addition, “[defendant failed to make a ‘convincing showing that [he had] both important testimony to give’ concerning the offenses relating to one victim and ‘a genuine need to refrain from testifying’ on the offenses relating to the other victim” (People v Owens, 256 AD2d 1220, 1221, lv denied 93 NY2d 877, 880, quoting CPL 200.20 [3] [b]; see, People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 10; People v Spina, 275 AD2d 902, 903).

We reject the further contention of defendant that the trial court erred in denying his request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of renunciation (see, Penal Law § 40.10). We conclude that “under no reasonable view of the evidence could the jury have found that defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime was avoided by his abandonment of the criminal effort ‘under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal purpose’ ” (People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 15, quoting Penal Law § 40.10 [3]; see, People v Jenks, 239 AD2d 673, 675-676).

Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that his conviction of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) and assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict convicting him of those crimes is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Sirkin, J. — Attempted Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurl-butt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.