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.
30 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2023 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. Wilsongreen2 sentences2016Although the prospective juror expressed concern regarding his financial hardship as a result of his potential jury service, he reassured the court that his employment obligations would not prevent him from being fair and impartial (see People v Wilson, 52 AD3d 941, 942 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 743 [2008]). 2016Although the prospective juror expressed concern regarding his financial hardship as a result of his potential jury service, he reassured the court that his employment obligations would not prevent him from being fair and impartial (see People v Wilson, 52 AD3d 941, 942 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 743 [2008]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hargisgreen2 sentences2023That contention is properly before us inasmuch as defendant used a peremptory challenge on that juror and thereafter exhausted his peremptory challenges ( see CPL 270.20 [2]; People v Culhane , 33 NY2d 90, 97 [1973]; People v Hargis , 151 AD3d 1946, 1948 [4th Dept 2017]). 2023That contention is properly before us inasmuch as defendant used a peremptory challenge on that juror and thereafter exhausted his peremptory challenges ( see CPL 270.20 [2]; People v Culhane , 33 NY2d 90, 97 [1973]; People v Hargis , 151 AD3d 1946, 1948 [4th Dept 2017]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Culhanegreen2 sentences2023That contention is properly before us inasmuch as defendant used a peremptory challenge on that juror and thereafter exhausted his peremptory challenges ( see CPL 270.20 [2]; People v Culhane , 33 NY2d 90, 97 [1973]; People v Hargis , 151 AD3d 1946, 1948 [4th Dept 2017]). 2023That contention is properly before us inasmuch as defendant used a peremptory challenge on that juror and thereafter exhausted his peremptory challenges ( see CPL 270.20 [2]; People v Culhane , 33 NY2d 90, 97 [1973]; People v Hargis , 151 AD3d 1946, 1948 [4th Dept 2017]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Chambersgreen2 sentences2008“That is denied.” Clearly, the prospective juror in question gave both defense counsel and the court an unequivocal, personal assurance that she would be able to put her bias aside and render an impartial verdict on the evidence and, contrary to defendant’s argument, the trial court properly denied defense counsel’s challenge for cause (see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001] [“Upon such a challenge, a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge or opinion, about her ability to serve impartially must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that she can 2007The prospective juror gave the requisite unequivocal assurances that she would follow the law and consider police testimony just as she would any other testimony (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Madison, 8 AD3d 956, 957 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Cato, 306 AD2d 912, 913 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 569 [2003]; see generally People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Arnoldgreen2 sentences2015The panelist’s subsequent assurance to the court that he would do his best to adhere to the court’s instructions was sufficiently unequivocal to justify the denial of the challenge (see People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 104 [2004]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358 [2001]). 2008“That is denied.” Clearly, the prospective juror in question gave both defense counsel and the court an unequivocal, personal assurance that she would be able to put her bias aside and render an impartial verdict on the evidence and, contrary to defendant’s argument, the trial court properly denied defense counsel’s challenge for cause (see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001] [“Upon such a challenge, a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge or opinion, about her ability to serve impartially must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that she can | 1 | 2 |
People v. LaVallegreen1 sentence2015The panelist’s subsequent assurance to the court that he would do his best to adhere to the court’s instructions was sufficiently unequivocal to justify the denial of the challenge (see People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 104 [2004]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Camposgreen1 sentence2014The court also properly denied defense counsel’s request to order a midtrial CPL article 730 competency examination, since defendant’s competency had previously been established before the commencement of trial, and there had been no change in circumstances that would have required the court to order yet another examination (see People v Campos, 93 AD3d 581, 583 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 971 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Petrovichgreen1 sentence2014Defense counsel’s request to submit the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance to the jury over defendant’s objection was properly denied because, as between defendant and his counsel, the decision as to whether to submit the affirmative defense fell to defendant (see People v Petrovich, 87 NY2d 961, 963 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shulmangreen1 sentence2008“That is denied.” Clearly, the prospective juror in question gave both defense counsel and the court an unequivocal, personal assurance that she would be able to put her bias aside and render an impartial verdict on the evidence and, contrary to defendant’s argument, the trial court properly denied defense counsel’s challenge for cause (see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001] [“Upon such a challenge, a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge or opinion, about her ability to serve impartially must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that she can | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2007The prospective juror gave the requisite unequivocal assurances that she would follow the law and consider police testimony just as she would any other testimony (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Madison, 8 AD3d 956, 957 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Cato, 306 AD2d 912, 913 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 569 [2003]; see generally People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Madisongreen1 sentence2007The prospective juror gave the requisite unequivocal assurances that she would follow the law and consider police testimony just as she would any other testimony (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Madison, 8 AD3d 956, 957 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Cato, 306 AD2d 912, 913 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 569 [2003]; see generally People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bennefieldgreen1 sentence2007The prospective juror gave the requisite unequivocal assurances that she would follow the law and consider police testimony just as she would any other testimony (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Madison, 8 AD3d 956, 957 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Cato, 306 AD2d 912, 913 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 569 [2003]; see generally People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Remeltgreen1 sentence2004Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved his contention for our review, we conclude that the court properly denied the challenge because defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination (see People v Remelt, 269 AD2d 815, 815-816 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 870 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Willardgreen1 sentence2000“Where a prospective juror has expressed bias or preconceived opinions but subsequently articulates the ability to put aside such feelings or opinions, and to render an impartial verdict based upon the evidence, the trial court may properly deny a challenge for cause” (People v Burdo, 256 AD2d 737, 741 ; see, People v Willard, 226 AD2d 1014, 1017-1018 , lv dismissed 88 NY2d 943 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duffy v. Vogel
green
2 sentences2016Although the prospective juror expressed concern regarding his financial hardship as a result of his potential jury service, he reassured the court that his employment obligations would not prevent him from being fair and impartial (see People v Wilson, 52 AD3d 941, 942 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 743 [2008]). 2016Although the prospective juror expressed concern regarding his financial hardship as a result of his potential jury service, he reassured the court that his employment obligations would not prevent him from being fair and impartial (see People v Wilson, 52 AD3d 941, 942 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 743 [2008]). | 3 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2016The court properly denied defense counsel’s request for a missing witness instruction with regard to the guard, who was no longer employed by the security company, since he was neither available to the People nor within their control for purposes of a missing witness instruction (see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424 [1986]). 1993Counsel’s request was untimely and lacked sufficient specificity (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 ). | 3 | 1989–2016 |
People v. Toussaint
green
1 sentence2010Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly denied his challenge for cause with respect to a prospective juror inasmuch as his contention that the prospective juror was not truthful during voir dire is based on mere speculation (see People v Toussaint, 74 AD3d 846 [2010]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rose v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2008“New York takes a broad view in evaluating what improvements are to be regarded as fixtures. . . . [M]achinery [is] deemed a fixture ‘where it is installed in such [a] manner that its removal will result in material injury to it or the realty, or where the building in which it is placed was specially designed to house it, or where there is other evidence that its installation was of a permanent nature’ ” (Rose, 24 NY2d at 86 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Marquez
green
1 sentence2007The prospective juror gave the requisite unequivocal assurances that she would follow the law and consider police testimony just as she would any other testimony (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Madison, 8 AD3d 956, 957 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Cato, 306 AD2d 912, 913 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 569 [2003]; see generally People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Horne
green
1 sentence2004By failing to request a hearing on the issue of restitution or objecting to the amount of restitution ordered, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the amount is not supported by the record (see People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404 , 414 n 3 [2002]; People v Lovett, 8 AD3d 1007 [2004]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Arnold v. Sampson
green
1 sentence2004By failing to request a hearing on the issue of restitution or objecting to the amount of restitution ordered, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the amount is not supported by the record (see People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404 , 414 n 3 [2002]; People v Lovett, 8 AD3d 1007 [2004]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Walker
green
1 sentence2000The court’s Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into the underlying facts of defendant’s youthful offender adjudication for robbery and his conviction for escape but barring inquiry as to his prior drug convictions, was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Burdo
green
1 sentence2000“Where a prospective juror has expressed bias or preconceived opinions but subsequently articulates the ability to put aside such feelings or opinions, and to render an impartial verdict based upon the evidence, the trial court may properly deny a challenge for cause” (People v Burdo, 256 AD2d 737, 741 ; see, People v Willard, 226 AD2d 1014, 1017-1018 , lv dismissed 88 NY2d 943 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2000The court properly denied a defense application to adjourn the trial to permit defense counsel to conduct a further investigation into defendant’s whereabouts, since defendant’s absence was clearly deliberate and there was no reason to expect that defendant’s presence could be obtained after a further delay (see, People v Johnson, 262 AD2d 155, 156 , lv denied 94 NY2d 798 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Allen
green
1 sentence1996Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly denied the defense counsel’s peremptory challenge to a white juror, finding that the proffered explanations therefor were pretextual (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101 ; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Batson v. Kentucky green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Renaud neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Nestor v. Diamond green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Hunter
green
1 sentence1996Defendant’s claim that the court simply dismissed out of hand his pro se pretrial motion, in violation of People v Renaud ( 145 AD2d 367, 369-370 , appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 734 ), is plainly refuted by the record, which reveals that the court, acting well within its authority (see, People v Hunter, 169 AD2d 538 , lv denied 77 NY2d 907 ), advised defense counsel that the motion would be considered only if she took the motion, put it into proper form and submitted it directly, which she failed to do. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. James neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Richie
green
1 sentence1996Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly denied the defense counsel’s peremptory challenge to a white juror, finding that the proffered explanations therefor were pretextual (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101 ; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Pollard
neutral
1 sentence1996The court’s determination is entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v Jenkins, 221 AD2d 659 ; People v Waldo, 221 AD2d 390 ; People v Rivera, 220 AD2d 782 ; People v Pollard, 219 AD2d 737 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Rivera green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Waldo
neutral
1 sentence1996The court’s determination is entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v Jenkins, 221 AD2d 659 ; People v Waldo, 221 AD2d 390 ; People v Rivera, 220 AD2d 782 ; People v Pollard, 219 AD2d 737 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Jenkins neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Tirado
neutral
1 sentence1996The court properly denied the defense request for a second adjournment of this very short trial to allow it another opportunity to secure the presence of a witness, the likelihood of the witness’s appearance and the value of his testimony being speculative, at best (see, People v Tirado, 223 AD2d 482 , lv denied 87 NY2d 1026 ; People v James, 200 AD2d 394 , lv denied 83 NY2d 854 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Glover green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Antommarchi green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Kritsky neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Villanueva neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Wilkins green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Dyer green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Nunez neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Glover green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Wise green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Lewis green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Sullivan neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Salladeen neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Moore neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Johnson v. Lutz green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Salladeen neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| In re Leon RR green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.
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.