189 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1988–2026 26 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. Ventimigliagreen2 sentences2024The defendant contends that evidence of prior bad acts, with regard to which he contends the People should have requested a Ventimiglia hearing ( see People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d 350, 362 ), was erroneously admitted. 2024The defendant contends that evidence of prior bad acts, with regard to which he contends the People should have requested a Ventimiglia hearing ( see People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d 350, 362 ), was erroneously admitted. | 9 | 76 |
People v. Crimminsgreen2 sentences2021We agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing this testimony without defendant having been put on notice and afforded a Ventimiglia hearing to determine its admissibility ( see People v Moore , 59 AD3d at 812 ; People v Holloway , 185 AD2d 646, 646-647 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 1027 [1992]). [*5]However, given the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt, including the victim's detailed testimony that was corroborated by, among other things, her mother's testimony and physical evidence, we find such error to be harmless as there was no significant probability that the jury would h 2021We agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing this testimony without defendant having been put on notice and afforded a Ventimiglia hearing to determine its admissibility ( see People v Moore , 59 AD3d at 812 ; People v Holloway , 185 AD2d 646, 646-647 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 1027 [1992]). [*5]However, given the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt, including the victim's detailed testimony that was corroborated by, among other things, her mother's testimony and physical evidence, we find such error to be harmless as there was no significant probability that the jury would h | 6 | 10 |
People v. Spotfordgreen2 sentences2013The sidebar did not concern Molineux prior bad act material, was not an informal Ventimiglia hearing (see id.; see also People v Spotford, 85 NY2d at 597; People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d at 590-591) and did not concern the admissibility of proposed testimony (see People v Turaine, 78 NY2d 871, 872 [1991]). 2013The sidebar did not concern Molineux prior bad act material, was not an informal Ventimiglia hearing (see id.; see also People v Spotford, 85 NY2d at 597; People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d at 590-591) and did not concern the admissibility of proposed testimony (see People v Turaine, 78 NY2d 871, 872 [1991]). | 5 | 10 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2022Ventimiglia hearing, or to object to the admission of [such evidence] at trial" ( People v Hogue , 133 AD3d 1209 , 1211 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1152 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Francis , 206 AD3d 1605 , 1606 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1133 [2022]; see generally People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). 2015Ventimiglia hearing, or to object to the admission of [such evidence] at trial” (People v Webster, 56 AD3d 1242 , 1242-1243 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 931 [2009], quoting People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). | 4 | 5 |
People v. Woodengreen2 sentences2024The People contend that the operability of the mace canister is of no import to the Court's analysis of facial insufficiency and cite to the holding in People v Wooden , 275 AD2d 935, 936 [4th Dept 2000] for the proposition that the danger posed by the canister itself should be analogized to the threat posed by a handgun which is employed as a bludgeon (People's affirmation at 10). 2024The People contend that the operability of the mace canister is of no import to the Court's analysis of facial insufficiency and cite to the holding in People v Wooden , 275 AD2d 935, 936 [4th Dept 2000] for the proposition that the danger posed by the canister itself should be analogized to the threat posed by a handgun which is employed as a bludgeon (People's affirmation at 10). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Sandovalgreen2 sentences2025The Court shall conduct a joint Sandoval i>/ Molineux / Ventimiglia hearing before the commencement of trial in order to balance the probative value and prejudicial nature of any such proof ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d at 375 ; People v Lee , 129 AD3d 1295, 1297-1298 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1001 [2016]). 2025The Court shall conduct a joint Sandoval / Molineux / Ventimiglia hearing before the commencement of trial in order to balance the probative value and prejudicial nature of any such proof ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d at 375; People v Lee , 129 AD3d 1295, 1297-1298 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1001 [2016]). | 3 | 17 |
People v. Alvinogreen2 sentences2010That evidence was relevant to establish defendant’s motive and intent (see People v Kelly, 71 AD3d 1520 [2010]; People v Harvey, 270 AD2d 959, 960 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 835 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 853 [2000]), and the court, following a Ventimiglia hearing, properly balanced the probative value of the evidence against its potential for prejudice (see People v Norman, 40 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 924 [2007]; see generally People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). 2010That evidence was relevant to establish defendant’s motive and intent (see People v Kelly, 71 AD3d 1520 [2010]; People v Harvey, 270 AD2d 959, 960 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 835 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 853 [2000]), and the court, following a Ventimiglia hearing, properly balanced the probative value of the evidence against its potential for prejudice (see People v Norman, 40 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 924 [2007]; see generally People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). | 3 | 7 |
People v. Tillgreen2 sentences2021In a Ventimiglia analysis, the trial court addresses first whether the evidence is relevant to a pertinent issue (a question of law typically involving Molineux exceptions) and then makes the discretionary determination whether the probative value outweighs the risk for real prejudice" ( People v Moore , 59 AD3d 809, 811-812 [2009] [internal citations omitted]; see People v Till , 87 NY2d 835, 836 [1995]). 2021In a Ventimiglia analysis, the trial court addresses first whether the evidence is relevant to a pertinent issue (a question of law typically involving Molineux exceptions) and then makes the discretionary determination whether the probative value outweighs the risk for real prejudice" ( People v Moore , 59 AD3d 809, 811-812 [2009] [internal citations omitted]; see People v Till , 87 NY2d 835, 836 [1995]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Padrogreen2 sentences2017Inasmuch as defendant raised that contention for the first time in a posttrial CPL 330.30 motion, it is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990], rearg denied 75 NY2d 1005 [1990], rearg dismissed 81 NY2d 989 [1993]), 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]). 2017Inasmuch as defendant raised that contention for the first time in a posttrial CPL 330.30 motion, it is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990], rearg denied 75 NY2d 1005 [1990], rearg dismissed 81 NY2d 989 [1993]), 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]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2013The sidebar did not concern Molineux prior bad act material, was not an informal Ventimiglia hearing (see id.; see also People v Spotford, 85 NY2d at 597; People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d at 590-591) and did not concern the admissibility of proposed testimony (see People v Turaine, 78 NY2d 871, 872 [1991]). 2013The sidebar did not concern Molineux prior bad act material, was not an informal Ventimiglia hearing (see id.; see also People v Spotford, 85 NY2d at 597; People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d at 590-591) and did not concern the admissibility of proposed testimony (see People v Turaine, 78 NY2d 871, 872 [1991]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Leegreen2 sentences2025The Court shall conduct a joint Sandoval i>/ Molineux / Ventimiglia hearing before the commencement of trial in order to balance the probative value and prejudicial nature of any such proof ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d at 375 ; People v Lee , 129 AD3d 1295, 1297-1298 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1001 [2016]). 2025The Court shall conduct a joint Sandoval / Molineux / Ventimiglia hearing before the commencement of trial in order to balance the probative value and prejudicial nature of any such proof ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d at 375; People v Lee , 129 AD3d 1295, 1297-1298 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1001 [2016]). | 3 | 3 |
| People v. Stultzgreen | 3 | 3 |
| People v. Brockgreen | 3 | 3 |
| People v. Browngreen | 3 | 3 |
People v. . Molineuxgreen2 sentences2023Thereafter, upon the defendant's request, the trial court shall conduct a Sandoval and/or Ventimiglia hearing prior to the commencement of trial. [See People v. .Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 (1974); People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 (1981); People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901)]. ,, Page 3 [* 3] People V. 2023Thereafter, upon the defendant's request, the trial court shall conduct a Sandoval and/or Ventimiglia hearing- prior to the commencement of trial. [See People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 (1974); People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 (1981); People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901 )]. | 2 | 22 |
People v. Turainegreen2 sentences2013The sidebar did not concern Molineux prior bad act material, was not an informal Ventimiglia hearing (see id.; see also People v Spotford, 85 NY2d at 597; People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d at 590-591) and did not concern the admissibility of proposed testimony (see People v Turaine, 78 NY2d 871, 872 [1991]). 2013The sidebar did not concern Molineux prior bad act material, was not an informal Ventimiglia hearing (see id.; see also People v Spotford, 85 NY2d at 597; People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d at 590-591) and did not concern the admissibility of proposed testimony (see People v Turaine, 78 NY2d 871, 872 [1991]). | 2 | 5 |
People v. Powellgreen2 sentences2022Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he "did not object on Molineux grounds to the admission of [the] testimony . . . nor did he request a Ventimiglia hearing" ( People v Thomas , 226 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [4th Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 995 [1996]; see People v Conley , 192 AD3d 1616, 1620 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1026 [2021]; People v Powell , 303 AD2d 978, 979 [4th Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 565 [2003], reconsideration denied 1 NY3d 541 [2003]). 2022Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he "did not object on Molineux grounds to the admission of [the] testimony . . . nor did he request a Ventimiglia hearing" ( People v Thomas , 226 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [4th Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 995 [1996]; see People v Conley , 192 AD3d 1616, 1620 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1026 [2021]; People v Powell , 303 AD2d 978, 979 [4th Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 565 [2003], reconsideration denied 1 NY3d 541 [2003]). | 2 | 4 |
People v. Shermangreen2 sentences2021We agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing this testimony without defendant having been put on notice and afforded a Ventimiglia hearing to determine its admissibility ( see People v Moore , 59 AD3d at 812 ; People v Holloway , 185 AD2d 646, 646-647 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 1027 [1992]). [*5]However, given the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt, including the victim's detailed testimony that was corroborated by, among other things, her mother's testimony and physical evidence, we find such error to be harmless as there was no significant probability that the jury would h 2021We agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing this testimony without defendant having been put on notice and afforded a Ventimiglia hearing to determine its admissibility ( see People v Moore , 59 AD3d at 812 ; People v Holloway , 185 AD2d 646, 646-647 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 1027 [1992]). [*5]However, given the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt, including the victim's detailed testimony that was corroborated by, among other things, her mother's testimony and physical evidence, we find such error to be harmless as there was no significant probability that the jury would h | 2 | 3 |
People v. Mccaingreen2 sentences2016Defendant waived his present contention that the court erred, following a Ventimiglia hearing, in allowing the prosecutor to present evidence of a prior bad act, i.e., an altercation he had with the victim’s mother the day before this incident, inasmuch as he consented to the admission of that evidence (see People v McCain, 307 AD2d 764, 765 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 622 [2003]; see generally People v Carr, 267 AD2d 1062, 1063 [1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 833 [2000]). 2016Defendant waived his present contention that the court erred, following a Ventimiglia hearing, in allowing the prosecutor to present evidence of a prior bad act, i.e., an altercation he had with the victim’s mother the day before this incident, inasmuch as he consented to the admission of that evidence (see People v McCain, 307 AD2d 764, 765 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 622 [2003]; see generally People v Carr, 267 AD2d 1062, 1063 [1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 833 [2000]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Paulgreen2 sentences2015Although defendant concedes that his contention is not preserved for our review because “he did not object to the testimony in question” (People v Paul, 78 AD3d 1684, 1684 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 834 [2011]), he further contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to object to such evidence, failed to request a Ventimiglia hearing, and failed to request curative instructions following the admission of the Ventimiglia evidence. 2015Although defendant concedes that his contention is not preserved for our review because “he did not object to the testimony in question” (People v Paul, 78 AD3d 1684, 1684 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 834 [2011]), he further contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to object to such evidence, failed to request a Ventimiglia hearing, and failed to request curative instructions following the admission of the Ventimiglia evidence. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Coldirongreen2 sentences2015In our view, the evidence was admissible because it “ ‘provided background information explaining’ ” why the police officers were called to the scene (People v Coldiron, 87 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 959 [2012]), and “was needed to complete the narrative of the events” that prompted police involvement (People v Miller, 286 AD2d 981, 982 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 657 [2001]). 2015In our view, the evidence was admissible because it “ ‘provided background information explaining’ ” why the police officers were called to the scene (People v Coldiron, 87 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 959 [2012]), and “was needed to complete the narrative of the events” that prompted police involvement (People v Miller, 286 AD2d 981, 982 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 657 [2001]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Millergreen2 sentences2015In our view, the evidence was admissible because it “ ‘provided background information explaining’ ” why the police officers were called to the scene (People v Coldiron, 87 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 959 [2012]), and “was needed to complete the narrative of the events” that prompted police involvement (People v Miller, 286 AD2d 981, 982 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 657 [2001]). 2015In our view, the evidence was admissible because it “ ‘provided background information explaining’ ” why the police officers were called to the scene (People v Coldiron, 87 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 959 [2012]), and “was needed to complete the narrative of the events” that prompted police involvement (People v Miller, 286 AD2d 981, 982 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 657 [2001]). | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Robinsongreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Russogreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Meseckgreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Cassgreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Allengreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Orbakergreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Carrgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Morrisgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Shofkomgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Woodgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Watsongreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Wemettegreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Nolcoxgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Resekgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Baldigreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Sanchezgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Gorghangreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Gorhamgreen | 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. Spotford
green
2 sentences1995Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his absence from an in-chambers conference held prior to jury selection deprived him of the right to be present at a Ventimiglia hearing (see, People v Spotford, 196 AD2d 179 , Iv granted 83 NY2d 915 ). 1995Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that his absence from an in-chambers conference held prior to jury selection deprived him of the right to be present at a Ventimiglia hearing (see, People v Spotford, 196 AD2d 179 , Iv granted 83 NY2d 915 ). | 6 | 1994–1995 |
The People v. Dru Allard
green
2 sentences2024Additionally, defendant moves for a hearing on the underlying facts pursuant to People v Luperon , 85 NY2d 71 [1995] and People v Allard , 28 NY3d 41 [2016], respectively, if the motion is not granted, and for suppression of evidence concerning identification of defendant pursuant to CPL § 710.30 or, in the alternative, a Wade/Crews/Rodriguez hearing, and for preclusion of evidence concerning any prior convictions or bad acts or, in the alternative, a Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearing. 2024Additionally, defendant moves for a hearing on the underlying facts pursuant to People v Luperon , 85 NY2d 71 [1995] and People v Allard , 28 NY3d 41 [2016], respectively, if the motion is not granted, and for suppression of evidence concerning identification of defendant pursuant to CPL § 710.30 or, in the alternative, a Wade/Crews/Rodriguez hearing, and for preclusion of evidence concerning any prior convictions or bad acts or, in the alternative, a Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearing. | 4 | 2024–2024 |
In re Dawkins
green
2 sentences2017Inasmuch as defendant raised that contention for the first time in a posttrial CPL 330.30 motion, it is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990], rearg denied 75 NY2d 1005 [1990], rearg dismissed 81 NY2d 989 [1993]), 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]). 2017Inasmuch as defendant raised that contention for the first time in a posttrial CPL 330.30 motion, it is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990], rearg denied 75 NY2d 1005 [1990], rearg dismissed 81 NY2d 989 [1993]), 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]). | 4 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2011Defendant’s remaining contention that she was denied a formal Ventimiglia hearing has been reviewed and is found to be without merit (see People v Wemette, 285 AD2d 729, 731 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 689 [2001]; People v Holmes, 260 AD2d 942 , 943 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1020 [1999]). 2000The Appellate Division also has labeled as a Ventimiglia hearing those in which a prior crime of the defendant was involved (e.g., People v Gaston, 261 AD2d 782 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1002 [attempted murder; prior drug trafficking]; also, People v Holmes, 260 AD2d 942 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1020 ; People v Glass, 259 AD2d 989 , lv denied 93 NY2d 924 ; People v Greene, 252 AD2d 746, lv denied 92 NY2d 925 ; People v McClain, 250 AD2d 871 , lv denied 92 NY2d 901 ); as a Molineux hearing in the same situation (e.g., People v Vaughn, 209 AD2d 459 , lv denied 84 NY2d 1040 [manslaughter; drug activity]; al | 4 | 2000–2012 |
People v. Hudy
green
2 sentences1994The record reveals that the prosecutor met his initial obligation to seek a ruling on the admissibility of evidence of prior uncharged crimes before the trial commenced (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 55 ; People v Ventimiglia, supra, at 362 ). 1994The record reveals that the prosecutor met his initial obligation to seek a ruling on the admissibility of evidence of prior uncharged crimes before the trial commenced (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 55 ; People v Ventimiglia, supra, at 362 ). | 4 | 1990–1994 |
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2022Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he "did not object on Molineux grounds to the admission of [the] testimony . . . nor did he request a Ventimiglia hearing" ( People v Thomas , 226 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [4th Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 995 [1996]; see People v Conley , 192 AD3d 1616, 1620 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1026 [2021]; People v Powell , 303 AD2d 978, 979 [4th Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 565 [2003], reconsideration denied 1 NY3d 541 [2003]). 2022Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he "did not object on Molineux grounds to the admission of [the] testimony . . . nor did he request a Ventimiglia hearing" ( People v Thomas , 226 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [4th Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 995 [1996]; see People v Conley , 192 AD3d 1616, 1620 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1026 [2021]; People v Powell , 303 AD2d 978, 979 [4th Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 565 [2003], reconsideration denied 1 NY3d 541 [2003]). | 3 | 1996–2022 |
People v. McLeod
green
2 sentences2019People v Nicholson , 26 NY3d 813, 829 [2016]), and the lack of a Ventimiglia hearing did not cause defendant any prejudice ( see People v McLeod , 279 AD2d 372 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY3d 921 [2001]). 2015The lack of a Ventimiglia hearing did not cause defendant any prejudice (see People v McLeod, 279 AD2d 372 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 921 [2001]). | 3 | 2002–2019 |
People v. Warfield
green
2 sentences2015Ventimiglia hearing, or to object to the admission of [such evidence] at trial” (People v Webster, 56 AD3d 1242 , 1242-1243 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 931 [2009], quoting People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). 2015Ventimiglia hearing, or to object to the admission of [such evidence] at trial” (People v Webster, 56 AD3d 1242 , 1242-1243 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 931 [2009], quoting People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Mendoza green | 3 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Johnson green | 3 | 1998–2010 |
| People v. Allweiss green | 3 | 1988–1995 |
| People v. Spencer neutral | 3 | 1992–1994 |
| People v. Luperon green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Hogue green | 2 | 2019–2022 |
| People v. Shofkom green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| People v. Shofkom green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| People v. Sanchez neutral | 2 | 1995–2006 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 2 | 1998–2004 |
| People v. Heath green | 2 | 2002–2003 |
| People v. Robinson green | 2 | 1996–2002 |
| People v. Lewis green | 2 | 1992–2002 |
| People v. Mitchell green | 2 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Gardner green | 2 | 1991–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.