Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences1992In light of the fact that the defendant, who made a motion to suppress his statements before his first trial, made a new motion for suppression on Cunningham grounds (see, People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 ) immediately prior to his retrial, I do not agree with my colleagues that the defendant waived his right to press his Cunningham claim on this appeal because his attorney failed to raise it on the appeal from his now-vacated judgment of conviction (see, People v Griswold, 58 NY2d 633 ; see also, People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51, 56 ). 1980Although the United States Supreme Court has stated that it favors prospective application for any decision amplifying the exclusionary rule (Desist v United States, 394 US 244, 249 , supra), the Cunningham rule rests solidly and exclusively on State constitutional law (People v Cunningham, supra, p 207 ), and the courts of this State have "consistently exercised the highest degree of vigilance in safeguarding the right of an accused to have the assistance of an attorney at every stage of the legal proceedings against him” (People v Cunningham, supra, p 207 ). | 1 | 3 |
Stapleton Studios v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2007We therefore remit for a hearing on the issue of Cunningham’s ownership of that property and its availability to petitioner for satisfaction of the judgment, as well as for a determination on petitioner’s request for disclosure pursuant to CPLR 408 (see Stapleton Studios v City of New York, 7 AD3d 273, 274-275 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sandersgreen2 sentences1992In light of the fact that the defendant, who made a motion to suppress his statements before his first trial, made a new motion for suppression on Cunningham grounds (see, People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 ) immediately prior to his retrial, I do not agree with my colleagues that the defendant waived his right to press his Cunningham claim on this appeal because his attorney failed to raise it on the appeal from his now-vacated judgment of conviction (see, People v Griswold, 58 NY2d 633 ; see also, People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51, 56 ). 1992I note, however, that my colleagues nonetheless comment upon that claim and I agree with their assertions that, although the disputed statements were obtained after the defendant requested an attorney (see, People v Cunningham, supra), the failure to suppress them does not mandate reversal because any error occasioned by that failure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ; see also, People v Sanders, supra). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Merrimanyellow2 sentences1982(See People v Perez, 42 NY2d 971 ; People v Pickett, 52 NY2d 892 ; but cf. People v Moore, 79 AD2d 619 .) While there is, concededly, a significant difference between the roles played by an attorney at a lineup and during interrogation, a lawyer’s participation at the lineup is not merely that of a wholly passive observer. 1982(See People v Perez, 42 NY2d 971 ; People v Pickett, 52 NY2d 892 ; but cf. People v Moore, 79 AD2d 619 .) While there is, concededly, a significant difference between the roles played by an attorney at a lineup and during interrogation, a lawyer’s participation at the lineup is not merely that of a wholly passive observer. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Crimmins
green
1 sentence1992I note, however, that my colleagues nonetheless comment upon that claim and I agree with their assertions that, although the disputed statements were obtained after the defendant requested an attorney (see, People v Cunningham, supra), the failure to suppress them does not mandate reversal because any error occasioned by that failure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ; see also, People v Sanders, supra). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Griswold
green
1 sentence1992In light of the fact that the defendant, who made a motion to suppress his statements before his first trial, made a new motion for suppression on Cunningham grounds (see, People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 ) immediately prior to his retrial, I do not agree with my colleagues that the defendant waived his right to press his Cunningham claim on this appeal because his attorney failed to raise it on the appeal from his now-vacated judgment of conviction (see, People v Griswold, 58 NY2d 633 ; see also, People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51, 56 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Perez
green
2 sentences1982(See People v Perez, 42 NY2d 971 ; People v Pickett, 52 NY2d 892 ; but cf. People v Moore, 79 AD2d 619 .) While there is, concededly, a significant difference between the roles played by an attorney at a lineup and during interrogation, a lawyer’s participation at the lineup is not merely that of a wholly passive observer. 1982(See People v Perez, 42 NY2d 971 ; People v Pickett, 52 NY2d 892 ; but cf. People v Moore, 79 AD2d 619 .) While there is, concededly, a significant difference between the roles played by an attorney at a lineup and during interrogation, a lawyer’s participation at the lineup is not merely that of a wholly passive observer. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Pickett
neutral
2 sentences1982(See People v Perez, 42 NY2d 971 ; People v Pickett, 52 NY2d 892 ; but cf. People v Moore, 79 AD2d 619 .) While there is, concededly, a significant difference between the roles played by an attorney at a lineup and during interrogation, a lawyer’s participation at the lineup is not merely that of a wholly passive observer. 1982(See People v Perez, 42 NY2d 971 ; People v Pickett, 52 NY2d 892 ; but cf. People v Moore, 79 AD2d 619 .) While there is, concededly, a significant difference between the roles played by an attorney at a lineup and during interrogation, a lawyer’s participation at the lineup is not merely that of a wholly passive observer. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Arthur
green
2 sentences1981While the decision in Cunningham has its origins in the so-called Donovan-Arthur line of cases (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), the Court of Appeals did not turn clearly to its current path on this issue until People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 ; see People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203, 209 , supra). 1981While the decision in Cunningham has its origins in the so-called Donovan-Arthur line of cases (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), the Court of Appeals did not turn clearly to its current path on this issue until People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 ; see People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203, 209 , supra). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Donovan
green
2 sentences1981While the decision in Cunningham has its origins in the so-called Donovan-Arthur line of cases (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), the Court of Appeals did not turn clearly to its current path on this issue until People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 ; see People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203, 209 , supra). 1981While the decision in Cunningham has its origins in the so-called Donovan-Arthur line of cases (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), the Court of Appeals did not turn clearly to its current path on this issue until People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 ; see People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203, 209 , supra). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Hobson
green
2 sentences1981While the decision in Cunningham has its origins in the so-called Donovan-Arthur line of cases (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), the Court of Appeals did not turn clearly to its current path on this issue until People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 ; see People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203, 209 , supra). 1981While the decision in Cunningham has its origins in the so-called Donovan-Arthur line of cases (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), the Court of Appeals did not turn clearly to its current path on this issue until People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 ; see People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203, 209 , supra). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Desist v. United States
green
2 sentences1980Although the United States Supreme Court has stated that it favors prospective application for any decision amplifying the exclusionary rule (Desist v United States, 394 US 244, 249 , supra), the Cunningham rule rests solidly and exclusively on State constitutional law (People v Cunningham, supra, p 207 ), and the courts of this State have "consistently exercised the highest degree of vigilance in safeguarding the right of an accused to have the assistance of an attorney at every stage of the legal proceedings against him” (People v Cunningham, supra, p 207 ). 1980Although the United States Supreme Court has stated that it favors prospective application for any decision amplifying the exclusionary rule (Desist v United States, 394 US 244, 249 , supra), the Cunningham rule rests solidly and exclusively on State constitutional law (People v Cunningham, supra, p 207 ), and the courts of this State have "consistently exercised the highest degree of vigilance in safeguarding the right of an accused to have the assistance of an attorney at every stage of the legal proceedings against him” (People v Cunningham, supra, p 207 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Prince
green
2 sentences1980In People v Prince ( 50 NY2d 883 ), the Court of Appeals applied the Cunningham rule to conduct occurring in December of 1976, reversing a conviction rendered by Criminal Term, March 10, 1978 and affirmed without opinion by this court July 2, 1979. 1980In People v Prince ( 50 NY2d 883 ), the Court of Appeals applied the Cunningham rule to conduct occurring in December of 1976, reversing a conviction rendered by Criminal Term, March 10, 1978 and affirmed without opinion by this court July 2, 1979. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.