green
Positive treatment
18.8 score
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Smith
Here, the court obtained the requisite unequivocal assurance from prospective juror number 15 that he would abide by the court's instruction that "the defendant that does not testify as a witness is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the defendant may be drawn" ( see People v Mitchell , 144 AD3d 1598, 1599-1600 [4th Dept 2016]; People v Ju Ju Jiang , 99 AD3d 724 , 725 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1062 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mitchell
We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to reopen the Huntley hearing with respect to recorded statements that defendant made to an agent of the police ( People v Mitchell , 144 AD3d 1598, 1600 [4th Dept 2016]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Winston
Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review her further evidentiary challenge to portions of the victim's testimony ( see People v Mitchell , 144 AD3d 1598, 1599 [4th Dept [*2]2016]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Reed
Furthermore, “ ‘any prejudice to defendant was minimized by [the court’s] limiting instructions’ ” (People v Carson, 4 AD3d 805, 806 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 797 [2004]; see People v Mitchell, 144 AD3d 1598, 1599 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see"
WHITE, ELIZABETH A., PEOPLE v
Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the fact that we did not set aside its premature verdict when the appeal was previously before us did not preclude it from considering further proof or making new factual determinations (cf. People v Cunningham, 95 NY2d 909, 910 ; see generally People v Mitchell, 144 AD3d 1598, 1600 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. White
Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the fact that we did not set aside its premature verdict when the appeal was previously before us did not preclude it from considering further proof or making new factual determinations (cf. People v Cunningham, 95 NY2d 909, 910 [2000]; see generally People v Mitchell, 144 AD3d 1598, 1600 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. White
Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the fact that we did not set aside its premature verdict when the appeal was previously before us did not preclude it from considering further proof or making new factual determinations (cf. People v Cunningham, 95 NY2d 909, 910 [2000]; see generally People v Mitchell, 144 AD3d 1598, 1600 [2016]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of County of Oneida
v.
Nirav R. Shah, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, , (Appeal No. 1.)
v.
Nirav R. Shah, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, , (Appeal No. 1.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 10, 2016.
Lindley, Scudder, Smith, Valentino, Whalen.
Published
Appeal, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Clark, J.), entered July 15, 2014 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and a declaratory judgment action. The order granted petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct disclosure pursuant to CPLR 408.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal is dismissed without costs as moot (see generally Matter of Colonial Sur. Co. v Lakeview Advisors, LLC [appeal No. 1], 125 AD3d 1292, 1292-1293 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 901 [2015]).
All concur except Valentino, J., who is not participating.
Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.