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 1 courts 1989–2022 2 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. Bombardgreen2 sentences2022"Defendant, however, has not demonstrated on this record the absence of strategic reasons for defense counsel's conduct or that, had counsel . . . taken the actions that defendant now points to, there was any likelihood of success" ( People v Bombard , 187 AD3d 1417, 1420 [2020] [internal citations omitted]). 2022"Defendant, however, has not demonstrated on this record the absence of strategic reasons for defense counsel's conduct or that, had counsel . . . taken the actions that defendant now points to, there was any likelihood of success" ( People v Bombard , 187 AD3d 1417, 1420 [2020] [internal citations omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence2001Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his attorney effectively and explicitly waived any objection based upon a possible Rosario violation (see, People v Brown, 90 NY2d 872 ; People v Booker, 158 AD2d 700 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Booker
green
1 sentence2001Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his attorney effectively and explicitly waived any objection based upon a possible Rosario violation (see, People v Brown, 90 NY2d 872 ; People v Booker, 158 AD2d 700 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Albelo
neutral
1 sentence1991In any event, since defendant failed to bring to the trial court’s attention the issue of a possible Rosario violation, or to apply to the trial court for any sanction, or to show any prejudice to him at trial, his claim on appeal of undue prejudice at trial stemming from the alleged Rosario rule violation is meritless (see, e.g., People v Albelo, 166 AD2d 313 , lv denied 77 NY2d 835 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Howard
green
1 sentence1989Moreover, as stated in People v Howard ( 127 AD2d 109, 118 , lv denied 70 NY2d 648 ), there is no subdivision of CPL 440.10 which authorizes the vacation of a judgment because of a Rosario violation, except in the case of newly discovered evidence (see, CPL 440.10 [1] [g]). | 1 | 1989–1989 |