Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ali
We further conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to preserve that Batson challenge for our review inasmuch as the prosecutor offered a legitimate race neutral reason for striking the prospective juror in question, and thus defendant’s challenge would not have been successful (see People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 982-983 [2001]; see also People v Ortiz, 302 AD2d 257 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 541 [2003]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thompson
The prosecutor set forth race-neutral reasons for striking the prospective juror in .question, inasmuch as the prospective juror had a prior conviction as well as a relative with a prior conviction (see People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 982-983 [2001]; see generally People v Gajadhar, 38 AD3d 127, 137 [2007], affd 9 NY3d 438 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Byrd
Neither hearing is required in a classic “buy and bust” operation where, as here, a confirmatory identification procedure is immediately conducted by an undercover officer within minutes after the sale of drugs to the undercover officer (see People v Stubbs, 6 AD3d 1109 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004]; People v Blocker, 309 AD2d 1240 [2003], Iv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003]; People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 983 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ball
We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in determining that the People provided race-neutral explanations for exercising peremptory challenges with respect to three African-American prospective jurors (see generally Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181 [1996]), i.e., that each had a relative who had been convicted of a crime and thus each would likely be sympathetic toward defendant (see People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 982-983 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Stubbs
“Such a hearing is not required in a classic ‘buy and bust’ undercover operation where the undercover officer identifies the defendant immediately after the transaction” (People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 983 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Welch
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant made a prima facie showing that the juror was challenged based upon her race, we conclude that the prosecutor provided a race-neutral explanation that was consistent with the prosecutor’s other peremptory challenges (see People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 982-983 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Welch
Such a hearing is not required in a classic ‘buy and bust’ undercover operation where the undercover officer identifies the defendant immediately after the transaction” {People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 983 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Shorter
In any event, the undercover officer’s identification of defendant was merely confirmatory (see People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 922-923 [1989]; Thompson, 298 AD2d at 870 ; People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 983 [2001]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Blocker
Where, as here, defendant is identified “by a trained undercover officer who observed defendant during the face-to-face drug transaction knowing defendant would shortly be arrested,” no such hearing is required (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 922 [1989]; see People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 983 [2001]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gant
The court properly found that explanation to be race-neutral on its face and not pretextual (see, People v Simmons, 171 AD2d 1053, 1054 , affd 79 NY2d 1013 ; see generally, People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982 ; People v Sell, 283 AD2d 920, 921 , lv denied 96 NY2d 867 ; People v Sprague, 280 AD2d 954 ; People v Hinds, 270 AD2d 891, 892 , lv denied 95 NY2d 964 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Fowler
The first challenged prospective juror stated that he has an incarcerated cousin who contends that he was wrongly convicted, thus providing the prosecutor with a nonpretextual explanation for challenging that prospective juror (see People v Pacheco, 308 AD2d 403 [2003]; People v Issac, 265 AD2d 190 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 904 [2000]; see also People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982 [2001]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Rodriguez
People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 ; see also People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 983 ; People v Carter, 283 AD2d 514 , lv denied 96 NY2d 899 ), there is no per se rule exempting identifications by police officers from Wade hearings “by merely labeling them as [confirmatory]” (Wharton, 74 NY2d at 923 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Kimberly Hart
v.
Kimberly Hart
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 8, 2001.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to defendant’s contention, the plea colloquy establishes that defendant’s plea was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered (see, People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543-544). Supreme Court advised defendant of the rights that she was waiving, and defendant indicated that she understood those rights, and confirmed that she had not taken any drugs, alcohol or medications or suffered from any physical or mental conditions that might affect her ability to understand the plea bargain. Defendant stated that she had sufficient opportunity to discuss the plea with her attorney. Finally, defendant admitted to her participation in the crime as outlined by the court (see, People v Schrecengost, 273 AD2d 937, 938, lv denied 95 NY2d 938). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Robbery, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Bums, JJ.