Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
We agree with defendant that the People were unable to meet their burden of establishing the content of the 911 call, and thus meaningful appellate review of defendant’s contentions is not possible (see People v Hasenflue, 48 AD3d 888, 890 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]; People v Ha, 18 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 788 [2005]; People v Jacobs, 286 AD2d 404, 405 [2001]; see generally People v Yavru-Sakuk, 98 NY2d 56, 59 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kings
Thus, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the reconstruction hearing was inadequate to protect his right of appeal (see People v Breaziel, 246 AD2d 310, 310-311 [1998]; People v Andino, 183 AD2d at 834-835 ; see also People v Mealer, 57 NY2d 214, 219 [1982] , cert denied 460 US 1024 [1983]; cf. People v Jacobs, 286 AD2d 404, 405 [2001]; People v Smith, 248 AD2d 568 [1998]; People v Laracuente, 136 AD2d 742, 743-744 [1988]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kings
Thus, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the reconstruction hearing was inadequate to protect his right of appeal (see People v Breaziel, 246 AD2d 310, 310-311 [1998]; People v Andino, 183 AD2d at 834-835 ; see also People v Mealer, 57 NY2d 214, 219 [1982] , cert denied 460 US 1024 [1983]; cf. People v Jacobs, 286 AD2d 404, 405 [2001]; People v Smith, 248 AD2d 568 [1998]; People v Laracuente, 136 AD2d 742, 743-744 [1988]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Orcutt
Moreover, we find the record on appeal to be sufficient for appellate review (see People v Shire, 23 AD3d 709, 709-710 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 852 [2006]; cf. People v Harrison, 85 NY2d 794 [1995]; People v Jacobs, 286 AD2d 404, 405 [2001]). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Wayne Horan, Also Known as Diño Caroselli
v.
Wayne Horan, Also Known as Diño Caroselli
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 13, 2001.
Published
Application by the appellant for a writ of error co-ram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 7, 1983 (People v Horan, 92 AD2d 876), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 2, 1979.
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). Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.