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.
28 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1976–2022 1 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. Fardangreen2 sentences2018Although the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 ), had previously ruled that such evidence would be precluded, the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination ( see People v Rodriguez , 85 NY2d 586, 591 ; People v Fardan , 82 NY2d 638, 646 ; People v Franks , 137 AD3d 936, 937 ; People v Perez , 120 AD3d 514, 514 ). 2016Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). *937 The Supreme Court did not err in permitting the People to cross-examine the defendant as to the underlying facts of a prior conviction, which the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), had previously ruled would be precluded, as the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination (see People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 5 | 1 | 3 |
People v. Dokesgreen2 sentences2014Therefore, the defendant’s pres *879 ence at the hearing would have been superfluous, and reversal of the judgment of conviction on that basis is unwarranted (see People v Michalek, 194 AD2d 568, 568-569 [1993], mod 82 NY2d 906 [1993]; see also People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 661 [1992]). 1995The Legislature could rationally conclude that the existence of circumstances evincing "depraved indifference” is an aggravating factor warranting more serious punishment, even where the conduct was accompanied by a reckless rather than an intentional mental state. *993 Finally, we reject defendant’s suggestion that her conviction should be reversed because of a claimed exclusion from the pretrial Sandoval hearing (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 ), since her claim is lacking in substantive merit. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2018Although the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 ), had previously ruled that such evidence would be precluded, the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination ( see People v Rodriguez , 85 NY2d 586, 591 ; People v Fardan , 82 NY2d 638, 646 ; People v Franks , 137 AD3d 936, 937 ; People v Perez , 120 AD3d 514, 514 ). 2016Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). *937 The Supreme Court did not err in permitting the People to cross-examine the defendant as to the underlying facts of a prior conviction, which the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), had previously ruled would be precluded, as the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination (see People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 5 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Pallaterigreen2 sentences2018Although the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 ), had previously ruled that such evidence would be precluded, the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination ( see People v Rodriguez , 85 NY2d 586, 591 ; People v Fardan , 82 NY2d 638, 646 ; People v Franks , 137 AD3d 936, 937 ; People v Perez , 120 AD3d 514, 514 ). 2016Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). *937 The Supreme Court did not err in permitting the People to cross-examine the defendant as to the underlying facts of a prior conviction, which the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), had previously ruled would be precluded, as the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination (see People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 5 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2014Defendant, “the only available source of testimony in support of his defense” (People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d 386, 387 [1991]), testified without the benefit of a Sandoval ruling (see People v Delgado, 101 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2012]; People v Slide, 76 AD3d 1106 , 1106-1108 [2010]; People v Montoya, 63 AD3d 961, 962-963 [2009]; People v Langlois, 265 AD2d 683, 684-685 [1999]; People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d at 387 ). 2010Since the Supreme Court failed to conduct a pretrial Sandoval hearing, and the People failed to provide adequate notice to the defendant of their intention to impeach his credibility, the Supreme Court committed error in allowing the People to cross-examine the defendant about those prior bad acts, and thereby deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial (see People v Beasley, 184 AD2d 1003, 1003-1004 [1992], affd 80 NY2d 981, 982 [1992]; People v Montoya, 63 AD3d at 961 ; People v Marrow, 301 AD2d 673, 675 [2003] ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Walkergreen1 sentence2019Following the reconstruction hearing, Supreme Court concluded that the codefendant failed to meet his burden of establishing his absence from the Sandoval hearing ( People v Walker , 117 AD3d 1578, 1579 [4th Dept 2014]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Walkergreen1 sentence2019Defendant's codefendant, who was tried jointly with defendant, also filed several postjudgment motions and, in 2011, the Court of Appeals determined that the codefendant was entitled to a reconstruction hearing to determine whether he was present at a pretrial Sandoval hearing ( People v Walker , 18 NY3d 839, 840 [2011]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Yazumgreen1 sentence2016The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to offer a recording from Rikers Island of the defendant’s phone conversation with a friend as evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 470 [1992]; People v Moses, 63 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; People v Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]; People v Braithwaite, 126 AD3d 993, 995 [2015]; People v De Vivo, 282 AD2d 770, 772 [2001]; People v Hernandez, 118 AD2d 729 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. De Vivogreen1 sentence2016The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to offer a recording from Rikers Island of the defendant’s phone conversation with a friend as evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 470 [1992]; People v Moses, 63 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; People v Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]; People v Braithwaite, 126 AD3d 993, 995 [2015]; People v De Vivo, 282 AD2d 770, 772 [2001]; People v Hernandez, 118 AD2d 729 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mosesgreen1 sentence2016The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to offer a recording from Rikers Island of the defendant’s phone conversation with a friend as evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 470 [1992]; People v Moses, 63 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; People v Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]; People v Braithwaite, 126 AD3d 993, 995 [2015]; People v De Vivo, 282 AD2d 770, 772 [2001]; People v Hernandez, 118 AD2d 729 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2016The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to offer a recording from Rikers Island of the defendant’s phone conversation with a friend as evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 470 [1992]; People v Moses, 63 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; People v Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]; People v Braithwaite, 126 AD3d 993, 995 [2015]; People v De Vivo, 282 AD2d 770, 772 [2001]; People v Hernandez, 118 AD2d 729 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Braithwaitegreen1 sentence2016The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to offer a recording from Rikers Island of the defendant’s phone conversation with a friend as evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 470 [1992]; People v Moses, 63 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; People v Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]; People v Braithwaite, 126 AD3d 993, 995 [2015]; People v De Vivo, 282 AD2d 770, 772 [2001]; People v Hernandez, 118 AD2d 729 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Henrygreen1 sentence2014Measured by an objective standard of reasonableness, a reasonably competent attorney would have moved for a pretrial Sandoval hearing or ruling, and there was no strategic or other legitimate explanation for counsel’s failure to do so (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 669 [1984]; People v Oathout, 21 NY3d 127, 128 [2013]; People v Turner, 5 NY3d at 480; People v Caban, 5 NY3d at 152; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2014Measured by an objective standard of reasonableness, a reasonably competent attorney would have moved for a pretrial Sandoval hearing or ruling, and there was no strategic or other legitimate explanation for counsel’s failure to do so (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 669 [1984]; People v Oathout, 21 NY3d 127, 128 [2013]; People v Turner, 5 NY3d at 480; People v Caban, 5 NY3d at 152; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stultzgreen1 sentence2014Generally, the failure to make a motion that has little or no chance of success does not constitute ineffective assistance (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]), and the failure to make a potentially meritorious motion, including one for a pretrial Sandoval hearing, does not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Cox, 146 AD2d 795, 796 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Turnergreen2 sentences2014However, under the circumstances of this case, counsel’s failure to move for a Sandoval hearing or ruling constitutes a single, egregious error that deprived defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). 2014Measured by an objective standard of reasonableness, a reasonably competent attorney would have moved for a pretrial Sandoval hearing or ruling, and there was no strategic or other legitimate explanation for counsel’s failure to do so (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 669 [1984]; People v Oathout, 21 NY3d 127, 128 [2013]; People v Turner, 5 NY3d at 480; People v Caban, 5 NY3d at 152; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Delgadogreen1 sentence2014Defendant, “the only available source of testimony in support of his defense” (People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d 386, 387 [1991]), testified without the benefit of a Sandoval ruling (see People v Delgado, 101 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2012]; People v Slide, 76 AD3d 1106 , 1106-1108 [2010]; People v Montoya, 63 AD3d 961, 962-963 [2009]; People v Langlois, 265 AD2d 683, 684-685 [1999]; People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d at 387 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coxgreen1 sentence2014Generally, the failure to make a motion that has little or no chance of success does not constitute ineffective assistance (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]), and the failure to make a potentially meritorious motion, including one for a pretrial Sandoval hearing, does not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Cox, 146 AD2d 795, 796 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mandigogreen2 sentences2014Defendant, “the only available source of testimony in support of his defense” (People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d 386, 387 [1991]), testified without the benefit of a Sandoval ruling (see People v Delgado, 101 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2012]; People v Slide, 76 AD3d 1106 , 1106-1108 [2010]; People v Montoya, 63 AD3d 961, 962-963 [2009]; People v Langlois, 265 AD2d 683, 684-685 [1999]; People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d at 387 ). 2014Defendant, “the only available source of testimony in support of his defense” (People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d 386, 387 [1991]), testified without the benefit of a Sandoval ruling (see People v Delgado, 101 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2012]; People v Slide, 76 AD3d 1106 , 1106-1108 [2010]; People v Montoya, 63 AD3d 961, 962-963 [2009]; People v Langlois, 265 AD2d 683, 684-685 [1999]; People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d at 387 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Michalekgreen1 sentence2014Therefore, the defendant’s pres *879 ence at the hearing would have been superfluous, and reversal of the judgment of conviction on that basis is unwarranted (see People v Michalek, 194 AD2d 568, 568-569 [1993], mod 82 NY2d 906 [1993]; see also People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 661 [1992]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cabangreen2 sentences2014However, under the circumstances of this case, counsel’s failure to move for a Sandoval hearing or ruling constitutes a single, egregious error that deprived defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). 2014Measured by an objective standard of reasonableness, a reasonably competent attorney would have moved for a pretrial Sandoval hearing or ruling, and there was no strategic or other legitimate explanation for counsel’s failure to do so (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 669 [1984]; People v Oathout, 21 NY3d 127, 128 [2013]; People v Turner, 5 NY3d at 480; People v Caban, 5 NY3d at 152; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Langloisgreen1 sentence2014Defendant, “the only available source of testimony in support of his defense” (People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d 386, 387 [1991]), testified without the benefit of a Sandoval ruling (see People v Delgado, 101 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2012]; People v Slide, 76 AD3d 1106 , 1106-1108 [2010]; People v Montoya, 63 AD3d 961, 962-963 [2009]; People v Langlois, 265 AD2d 683, 684-685 [1999]; People v Mandigo, 176 AD2d at 387 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Oathoutgreen1 sentence2014Measured by an objective standard of reasonableness, a reasonably competent attorney would have moved for a pretrial Sandoval hearing or ruling, and there was no strategic or other legitimate explanation for counsel’s failure to do so (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 669 [1984]; People v Oathout, 21 NY3d 127, 128 [2013]; People v Turner, 5 NY3d at 480; People v Caban, 5 NY3d at 152; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riveragreen1 sentence2014Generally, the failure to make a motion that has little or no chance of success does not constitute ineffective assistance (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]), and the failure to make a potentially meritorious motion, including one for a pretrial Sandoval hearing, does not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Cox, 146 AD2d 795, 796 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beasleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Marrowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beasleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Matthewsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harmon Associates v. Primerica Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Snellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pavaogreen | 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. Sandoval
green
2 sentences2022To the extent the defendant argues that the court also erred in failing to hold a Sandoval hearing ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 ), the record reveals that a pretrial Sandoval hearing was in fact held. 2018Following a pretrial Sandoval hearing ( see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 ), the Supreme Court granted the People's application to cross-examine the defendant, in the event he were to testify, about the underlying facts of the defendant's 2006 conviction for attempted coercion. | 15 | 1976–2022 |
People v. Baldi
green
2 sentences1990The mere fact that the defendant’s counsel did not engage in a pretrial procedure available to the defendant does not, in itself, indicate that the attorney was ineffective (see, People v Chang, 129 AD2d 722, 723 ), and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the defendant’s representation, reveal that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 ; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ; People v Sullivan, 153 AD2d 223, 229 ). 1986The mere fact that the defendant’s counsel did not engage in a pretrial procedure available to the defendant does not, in itself, indicate that the attorney was ineffective (see, People v Jackson, 110 AD2d 853 ; People v Taylor, 105 AD2d 814 ), and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the defendant’s representation, reveal that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ). | 2 | 1986–1990 |
People v. Franks
neutral
1 sentence2018Although the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 ), had previously ruled that such evidence would be precluded, the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination ( see People v Rodriguez , 85 NY2d 586, 591 ; People v Fardan , 82 NY2d 638, 646 ; People v Franks , 137 AD3d 936, 937 ; People v Perez , 120 AD3d 514, 514 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Romero
green
1 sentence2016Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). *937 The Supreme Court did not err in permitting the People to cross-examine the defendant as to the underlying facts of a prior conviction, which the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), had previously ruled would be precluded, as the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination (see People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 5 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hirniak
green
1 sentence2016The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to offer a recording from Rikers Island of the defendant’s phone conversation with a friend as evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 470 [1992]; People v Moses, 63 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; People v Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]; People v Braithwaite, 126 AD3d 993, 995 [2015]; People v De Vivo, 282 AD2d 770, 772 [2001]; People v Hernandez, 118 AD2d 729 [1986]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Michalek
green
1 sentence2014Therefore, the defendant’s pres *879 ence at the hearing would have been superfluous, and reversal of the judgment of conviction on that basis is unwarranted (see People v Michalek, 194 AD2d 568, 568-569 [1993], mod 82 NY2d 906 [1993]; see also People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 661 [1992]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| P.G.C. Associates, L. L. P. v. Assessors of Riverhead green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Harris green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Waheed v. Keit neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Robinson green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Augustine green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Lamour green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Simpson green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Maiolo neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Simpson green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. De Pasquale green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Betts green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Campbell green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Satterfield green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. White neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. McClain neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. Jasper neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. David neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| People v. Lombardi green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| People v. Brown green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.