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.
22 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2022 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. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). 2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). | 2 | 2 |
Tafari v. Rockgreen2 sentences2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). 2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Howardgreen2 sentences2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). 2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bleakleygreen2 sentences2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). 2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ponsgreen2 sentences2020Thus, there is no jurisdictional defect. [FN1] Defendant next argues that County Court should have instructed the jury on the justification defense as to count 2 of the indictment, which charged defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b); he asserts that the defense should be available to apply to that crime's intent element ( but see People v Pons , 68 NY2d 264, 267 [1986]). 2017We note, however, that the failure to instruct the jury on the justification defense does not affect the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon ( see People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264 ; People v Tasheem, 298 AD2d 411 , 412). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Reynosogreen2 sentences2001Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s request to charge the jury on the justification defense. “[N]o reasonable view of the evidence establishes the elements of the defense” (People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818 ; see, Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]). 1996Because no reasonable view of the evidence establishes that defendant’s actions were those of a reasonable man acting in self-defense, the court properly refused to charge the jury on the justification defense (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818 ; People v Collice, 41 NY2d 906 , 907). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Wesleygreen2 sentences2004In any event, the charge, taken as a whole, properly instructed the jury on the justification defense (see People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]; People v Bernard, 222 AD2d 599 [1995]; People v Thomas, 179 AD2d 793, 794 [1992]; People v Madden, 171 AD2d 558, 559 [1991]). 1996The preclusion of testimony of defendant that the victim had previously attacked him was not erroneous because there was no objective evidence of the need to use deadly force (see, People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 ; People v Comfort, 113 AD2d 430 , Iv denied 67 NY2d 760 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Goetzgreen2 sentences1990In any event, the court’s extensive instructions to the jury on the justification defense were proper (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 ). 1988Here, the trial court properly refused to charge the jury on the justification defense because "[e]ven if defendant had actually believed that he had been threatened with the imminent use of deadly physical force, and there is no evidence that he had so believed,” the jury could not rationally conclude that his reactions were those of a reasonable man acting in self-defense (People v Collice, 41 NY2d 906 , 907; see also, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Fordgreen1 sentence2019In any event, defendant's contention is without merit inasmuch as the language used by the court mirrored the language of the Criminal Jury Instructions and " the justification charge, viewed in its entirety, was a correct statement of the law' " ( People v Ford , 114 AD3d 1221, 1221 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 962 [2014]; see CJI2d[NY] Defense, Justification: Use of Deadly Physical Force in Defense of a Person). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Maddengreen1 sentence2004In any event, the charge, taken as a whole, properly instructed the jury on the justification defense (see People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]; People v Bernard, 222 AD2d 599 [1995]; People v Thomas, 179 AD2d 793, 794 [1992]; People v Madden, 171 AD2d 558, 559 [1991]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2004In any event, the charge, taken as a whole, properly instructed the jury on the justification defense (see People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]; People v Bernard, 222 AD2d 599 [1995]; People v Thomas, 179 AD2d 793, 794 [1992]; People v Madden, 171 AD2d 558, 559 [1991]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mattagreen1 sentence2004We conclude that defendant waived that contention, inasmuch as the court charged the jury in accordance with defendant’s request to charge the justification defense as it related to defendant, but not as it related to the premises (see generally People v Matta, 286 AD2d 944, 945 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 731 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Khangreen1 sentence2002However, the failure to instruct the jury on the justification defense does not affect the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon (see People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267-268 ; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126 ; People v Lentini, 221 AD2d 474, 475 ; People v Khan, supra at 774). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Magliatogreen1 sentence1996The Court of Appeals has held that where a defendant engages in conduct creating a risk of death or serious injury in order to scare an assailant or keep him at bay, the court must instruct the jury on the justification defense as set forth in Penal Law § 35.15 (People v Magliato, 68 NY2d 24, 26, 29 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Elbert v. Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Warner-Lambert Co.green | 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. Johnson
green
2 sentences2014Defendant failed to object to the court’s charge to the jury on the justification defense and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court improperly lowered the People’s burden of proof to disprove the defense (see People v Johnson, 103 AD3d 1226 , 1226 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]). 2014Defendant failed to object to the court’s charge to the jury on the justification defense and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court improperly lowered the People’s burden of proof to disprove the defense (see People v Johnson, 103 AD3d 1226 , 1226 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]). | 3 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Almodovar
green
2 sentences2002However, the failure to instruct the jury on the justification defense does not affect the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon (see People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267-268 ; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126 ; People v Lentini, 221 AD2d 474, 475 ; People v Khan, supra at 774). 1985However, the failure to instruct the jury on the justification defense does not affect the conviction for possession of a weapon (see, People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126 ). | 3 | 1985–2003 |
People v. Heatley
green
2 sentences2022Defendant did not object to Supreme Court's charge to the jury on the justification defense and therefore failed to preserve for review his contention that the charge was insufficient because the jury was not instructed that a justification defense could also include a defense of third parties and because the court did not relate the law on justification to the facts of this particular case ( see People v Cruz , 175 AD3d 1060 , 1061 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1016 [2019]; People v Heatley , 116 AD3d 23 , 25-26 [4th Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 25 NY3d 933 [2015]). 2019Defendant failed to object to County Court's charge to the jury on the justification defense and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the charge was insufficient because the jury was not instructed that they must assess the situation from defendant's point of view ( see People v Heatley , 116 AD3d 23 , 25-26 [4th Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 25 NY3d 933 [2015]). | 2 | 2019–2022 |
People v. Hogan
green
2 sentences2022Defendant did not object to Supreme Court's charge to the jury on the justification defense and therefore failed to preserve for review his contention that the charge was insufficient because the jury was not instructed that a justification defense could also include a defense of third parties and because the court did not relate the law on justification to the facts of this particular case ( see People v Cruz , 175 AD3d 1060 , 1061 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1016 [2019]; People v Heatley , 116 AD3d 23 , 25-26 [4th Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 25 NY3d 933 [2015]). 2019Defendant failed to object to County Court's charge to the jury on the justification defense and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the charge was insufficient because the jury was not instructed that they must assess the situation from defendant's point of view ( see People v Heatley , 116 AD3d 23 , 25-26 [4th Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 25 NY3d 933 [2015]). | 2 | 2019–2022 |
People v. STAINE
green
2 sentences2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). 2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Dunnell
green
2 sentences2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). 2012Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury’s ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find no basis to disturb the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]; People v Gonzalez, 64 AD3d 1038, 1041-1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; People v Howard, 299 AD2d 647, 648 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Suitte
green
2 sentences2004The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). 1997The sentence imposed was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). | 2 | 1997–2004 |
People v. Pritchett
green
2 sentences2017We note, however, that the failure to instruct the jury on the justification defense does not affect the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon (see People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264 [1986]; People v Tasheem, 298 AD2d 411 , 412 [2002]). 2017We note, however, that the failure to instruct the jury on the justification defense does not affect the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon ( see People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264 ; People v Tasheem, 298 AD2d 411 , 412). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Bernard
green
1 sentence2004In any event, the charge, taken as a whole, properly instructed the jury on the justification defense (see People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]; People v Bernard, 222 AD2d 599 [1995]; People v Thomas, 179 AD2d 793, 794 [1992]; People v Madden, 171 AD2d 558, 559 [1991]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Udzinski
green
1 sentence2003The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court failed to recharge the jury on the justification defense is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise the issue in that court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 ; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Gamble
green
1 sentence2003In any event, the Supreme Court, pursuant to the jury’s two requests, properly reinstructed the jury on the law applicable to the crimes charged (see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 132 ; People v Jackson, 226 AD2d 476, 477 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Gray
green
1 sentence2003The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court failed to recharge the jury on the justification defense is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise the issue in that court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 ; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Lentini
neutral
1 sentence2002However, the failure to instruct the jury on the justification defense does not affect the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon (see People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267-268 ; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126 ; People v Lentini, 221 AD2d 474, 475 ; People v Khan, supra at 774). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Comfort
neutral
1 sentence1996The preclusion of testimony of defendant that the victim had previously attacked him was not erroneous because there was no objective evidence of the need to use deadly force (see, People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 ; People v Comfort, 113 AD2d 430 , Iv denied 67 NY2d 760 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Fields
neutral
1 sentence1990Moreover, the omission from the verdict sheet of any reference to the justification defense cannot be said to have unduly prejudiced the defendant since the verdict sheet simply listed the two crimes charged in the indictment and the possible verdicts thereon, and the court extensively charged the jury on both the self-defense claim and its use of the verdict sheet (see, People v Sanchez, 153 AD2d 649 ; People v Fields, 134 AD2d 365 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence1990Moreover, the omission from the verdict sheet of any reference to the justification defense cannot be said to have unduly prejudiced the defendant since the verdict sheet simply listed the two crimes charged in the indictment and the possible verdicts thereon, and the court extensively charged the jury on both the self-defense claim and its use of the verdict sheet (see, People v Sanchez, 153 AD2d 649 ; People v Fields, 134 AD2d 365 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Henry P. v. Alicia C. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Viszokai green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Long green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| MATTER OF YANNON v. New York Tel. Co. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Miller green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.