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 2020–2026 4 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. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2026Here, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the complainant's testimony and the testimony of the complainant's mother, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of those two witnesses ( see People v Francisco , 44 AD3d 870, 870-871; People v Gonzalez , 170 AD2d 620, 620-621). 2026Here, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the complainant's testimony and the testimony of the complainant's mother, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of those two witnesses ( see People v Francisco , 44 AD3d 870, 870-871; People v Gonzalez , 170 AD2d 620, 620-621). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Franciscogreen2 sentences2026Here, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the complainant's testimony and the testimony of the complainant's mother, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of those two witnesses ( see People v Francisco , 44 AD3d 870, 870-871; People v Gonzalez , 170 AD2d 620, 620-621). 2026Here, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the complainant's testimony and the testimony of the complainant's mother, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of those two witnesses ( see People v Francisco , 44 AD3d 870, 870-871; People v Gonzalez , 170 AD2d 620, 620-621). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Andersongreen1 sentence2025Here, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the complainant's testimony, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination ( see People v Anderson , 235 AD3d at 994; People v Wingate , 184 AD3d 738, 739 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burtongreen1 sentence2022Here, we conclude that the court erred in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a witness's prior drug conviction that occurred two months before the shooting at issue here, inasmuch as those facts bore on the witness's credibility and were not remote or cumulative ( see People v Caines , 221 AD2d 278, 278 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 845 [1996]; People v Robinson , 133 AD2d 859, 861 [2d Dept 1987]; cf. People v Corby , 6 NY3d 231, 235-236 [2005]; People v Burton , 286 AD2d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 679 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2022Here, we conclude that the court erred in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a witness's prior drug conviction that occurred two months before the shooting at issue here, inasmuch as those facts bore on the witness's credibility and were not remote or cumulative ( see People v Caines , 221 AD2d 278, 278 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 845 [1996]; People v Robinson , 133 AD2d 859, 861 [2d Dept 1987]; cf. People v Corby , 6 NY3d 231, 235-236 [2005]; People v Burton , 286 AD2d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 679 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Corbygreen1 sentence2022Here, we conclude that the court erred in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a witness's prior drug conviction that occurred two months before the shooting at issue here, inasmuch as those facts bore on the witness's credibility and were not remote or cumulative ( see People v Caines , 221 AD2d 278, 278 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 845 [1996]; People v Robinson , 133 AD2d 859, 861 [2d Dept 1987]; cf. People v Corby , 6 NY3d 231, 235-236 [2005]; People v Burton , 286 AD2d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 679 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cainesgreen1 sentence2022Here, we conclude that the court erred in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a witness's prior drug conviction that occurred two months before the shooting at issue here, inasmuch as those facts bore on the witness's credibility and were not remote or cumulative ( see People v Caines , 221 AD2d 278, 278 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 845 [1996]; People v Robinson , 133 AD2d 859, 861 [2d Dept 1987]; cf. People v Corby , 6 NY3d 231, 235-236 [2005]; People v Burton , 286 AD2d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 679 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Grossgreen1 sentence2022However, we agree with defendant that the court erred to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of a witness regarding his criminal history. "[C]urtailment [of cross-examination] will be judged improper when it keeps from the jury relevant and important facts bearing on the trustworthiness of crucial testimony" ( People v Gross , 71 AD3d 1526, 1527 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 774 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Dizak , 93 AD3d 1182, 1183 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 972 [2012], reconsideration denied 20 NY3d 932 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dizakgreen1 sentence2022However, we agree with defendant that the court erred to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of a witness regarding his criminal history. "[C]urtailment [of cross-examination] will be judged improper when it keeps from the jury relevant and important facts bearing on the trustworthiness of crucial testimony" ( People v Gross , 71 AD3d 1526, 1527 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 774 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Dizak , 93 AD3d 1182, 1183 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 972 [2012], reconsideration denied 20 NY3d 932 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gomezgreen1 sentence2022In any event, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the complainant's credibility, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of him ( see People v Wingate , 184 AD3d 738, 739 ; see generally People v Gomez , 135 AD3d 954, 955 ). | 1 | 1 |
| 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. Wingate
green
2 sentences2025Here, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the complainant's testimony, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination ( see People v Anderson , 235 AD3d at 994; People v Wingate , 184 AD3d 738, 739 ). 2022In any event, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the complainant's credibility, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of him ( see People v Wingate , 184 AD3d 738, 739 ; see generally People v Gomez , 135 AD3d 954, 955 ). | 2 | 2022–2025 |
People v. Suitte
green
1 sentence2025The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2022The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to comply with the procedure for addressing jury notes set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 ) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Martinez , 186 AD3d 1530, 1532 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. O'Rama
green
1 sentence2022The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to comply with the procedure for addressing jury notes set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270, 277-278 ) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Martinez , 186 AD3d 1530, 1532 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |