126 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1858–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Indian Harbor Ins. v. Clifford Zuckergreen2 sentences2020Co. v Zucker , 860 F3d 373, 375 [6th Cir 2017]; Biltmore Assoc. 2020Co. v Zucker , 860 F3d 373, 375 [6th Cir 2017]; Biltmore Assoc. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Guerrerogreen2 sentences2014As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court failed to pronounce sentence on the conviction of assault in the third degree in the defendant’s presence in violation of its obligation under CPL 380.20 (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 47 [2009]; People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 472 [2008]; People v Hernandez, 107 AD3d 1016, 1016-1017 [2013]). 2013The People correctly concede that the County Court failed to pronounce sentence in the defendant’s presence in violation of its obligation under CPL 380.20 (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 47 [2009]; People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 472 [2008]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Sparbergreen2 sentences2014As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court failed to pronounce sentence on the conviction of assault in the third degree in the defendant’s presence in violation of its obligation under CPL 380.20 (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 47 [2009]; People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 472 [2008]; People v Hernandez, 107 AD3d 1016, 1016-1017 [2013]). 2013The People correctly concede that the County Court failed to pronounce sentence in the defendant’s presence in violation of its obligation under CPL 380.20 (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 47 [2009]; People v Sparber, 10 NY3d 457, 472 [2008]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). 2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Britogreen2 sentences2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). 2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Pellergreen2 sentences2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). 2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). 2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Bufordgreen2 sentences1997The court questioned the two jurors involved separately, in camera, in the presence of defense counsel and the prosecutor, and stated the reason for its ruling on the record (People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290 ). 1989Second, while it was improper for the court to conduct the interview with the juror outside the presence of defense counsel and the defendant (see, People v Buford, supra, at 299), reversal is not warranted since the defendant effectively consented to this procedure and no prejudice has been demonstrated. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Asarogreen2 sentences2022Indeed, it was sufficient that defendant drove at a speed significantly faster than the speed limit [FN4] and committed the "additional affirmative act" of driving through a red light while another car, with headlights illuminated and possibly strobe lights as well, was passing through the intersection, and never even braking before the collision ( People v Asaro , 21 NY3d 677, 684 [2013][internal quotation [*9]marks omitted]). 2022Indeed, it was sufficient that defendant drove at a speed significantly faster than the speed limit [FN4] and committed the "additional affirmative act" of driving through a red light while another car, with headlights illuminated and possibly strobe lights as well, was passing through the intersection, and never even braking before the collision ( People v Asaro , 21 NY3d 677, 684 [2013][internal quotation [*9]marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv 2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wilhelmgreen2 sentences2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv 2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv 2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ramtahalgreen2 sentences2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv 2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv | 2 | 2 |
People v. Greenegreen2 sentences2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv 2016Here, we conclude that County Court properly determined that the caseworker obtained the statements and letters in violation of defendant’s right to counsel (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 380 [2011]), inasmuch as there was such a degree of investigatory cooperation between the caseworker and a Village of Penn Yan police investigator that the caseworker acted as the agent of the police in questioning defendant and obtaining the letters from him outside the presence of defense counsel (see People v Wilhelm, 34 AD3d 40, 46-50 [2006]; People v Greene, 306 AD2d 639, 640-641 [2003], lv | 2 | 2 |
People v. Castillogreen2 sentences2015In People v Castillo, an informant's fear justified the court's ex parte proceeding to determine whether to disclose the informer's identity or statements ( 80 NY2d 578, 586 [1992], cert denied 507 US 1033 [1993]). 2015In People v Castillo, an informant’s fear justified the court’s ex parte proceeding to determine whether to disclose the informer’s identity or statements ( 80 NY2d 578, 586 [1992], cert denied 507 US 1033 [1993]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Henrygreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for resentencing on the conviction of robbery in the first degree in accordance with CPL 380.20 (see People v McGhee, 96 AD3d 786 [2012]; People v Henry, 80 AD3d 625, 626 [2011]). 2013Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for resentencing on the conviction of robbery in the first degree in accordance with CPL 380.20 (see People v McGhee, 96 AD3d 786 [2012]; People v Henry, 80 AD3d 625, 626 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Calvaruso v. Hunter Ambulette-Ambulance, Inc.green2 sentences2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S., 2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S., | 2 | 2 |
People v. Darbygreen2 sentences2001The presence of defense counsel at the inquiries was sufficient to afford defendants a “fair and just hearing” (People v Mullen, supra, at 6; cf., People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449 , supra), and defendants were present when their attorneys unsuccessfully argued for a mistrial and to disqualify the two jurors. 1993Because a juror, whom defendant had accepted and who had been sworn, was discharged by the court outside the presence of defense counsel, defendant was denied the minimum safeguard necessary to afford him a " 'fair and just hearing’ ” (People v Mullen, supra, at 5, quoting Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 108 ; see also, People v Darby, supra, at 453). | 1 | 6 |
| The People v.Kenneth Nealongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Banks (Gwendolyn R.)green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pittmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rahmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scherer v. Golub Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rose Park Place, Inc. v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| The People v. William Middlebrooks / The People v. Fabrice Lowegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Narayangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Graygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hernandezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Woodrowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Edward G.N.green | 1 | 1 |
| Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Farrago v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bonapartegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hameedgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Houston v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Keengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Robertsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Reyesgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences1993Because a juror, whom defendant had accepted and who had been sworn, was discharged by the court outside the presence of defense counsel, defendant was denied the minimum safeguard necessary to afford him a " 'fair and just hearing’ ” (People v Mullen, supra, at 5, quoting Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 108 ; see also, People v Darby, supra, at 453). 1992Indeed, it cannot be stated in this case that the defendant’s presence at the inquiry would have borne any relation to his ability to defend against the charges (see, Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97 ; People v Bumbury, 186 AD2d 671 ). | 4 | 1990–1993 |
People v. Peckham
green
2 sentences2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). 2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). | 3 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Antoine
green
2 sentences2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). 2016Consequently, we conclude that the court did not violate its core O’Rama responsibilities (see People v Barnes, 139 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]) and, therefore, preservation was required (see People v Brito, 135 AD3d 627, 628-629 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). | 3 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Bailey
green
2 sentences1992The defendant waived any claim of error regarding his absence when he failed to object to the questioning procedure (see, People v Torres, 174 AD2d 586 ; People v Gamble, 173 AD2d 555 ; People v Hazzard, 177 AD2d 593 ; People v Grant, 178 AD2d 283 ; People v Bailey, 146 AD2d 788 ). 1991Furthermore, because this was not a material part of the proceedings, the defendant, through his counsel, waived any claim of error regarding his absence (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; United States v Gagnon, 470 US 522 ; People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1 , 6, supra; People v Bailey, 146 AD2d 788, 789 ). | 3 | 1991–1992 |
People v. Vargas
green
2 sentences2015There, the trial court evaluated the juror's fear for his safety outside the presence of defense counsel and found it to be genuine (see id. at 379 ). 2015There, the trial court evaluated the juror’s fear for his safety outside the presence of defense counsel and found it to be genuine (see id. at 379 ). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Peterson v. Stafford
green
2 sentences2015In People v Castillo, an informant's fear justified the court's ex parte proceeding to determine whether to disclose the informer's identity or statements ( 80 NY2d 578, 586 [1992], cert denied 507 US 1033 [1993]). 2015In People v Castillo, an informant’s fear justified the court’s ex parte proceeding to determine whether to disclose the informer’s identity or statements ( 80 NY2d 578, 586 [1992], cert denied 507 US 1033 [1993]). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Sawyer
green
2 sentences2013At the hearing, defendant presented his various grounds for withdrawal of his plea in open court, in the presence of defense counsel, and all of defendant’s proffered bases were clearly without merit (see People v Sawyer, 55 AD3d at 950-951 ). 2013At the hearing, defendant presented his various grounds for withdrawal of his plea in open court, in the presence of defense counsel, and all of defendant’s proffered bases were clearly without merit (see People v Sawyer, 55 AD3d at 950-951 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
O'Leary v. Frangomihalos
green
2 sentences2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S., 2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S., | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Pitts
neutral
2 sentences2013Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for resentencing on the conviction of robbery in the first degree in accordance with CPL 380.20 (see People v McGhee, 96 AD3d 786 [2012]; People v Henry, 80 AD3d 625, 626 [2011]). 2013Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for resentencing on the conviction of robbery in the first degree in accordance with CPL 380.20 (see People v McGhee, 96 AD3d 786 [2012]; People v Henry, 80 AD3d 625, 626 [2011]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Mills
green
2 sentences2013Defendant sufficiently articulated his claims such that counsel could have taken action had a meritorious ground been proffered or other intervention been called for (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d at 895-896 ). 2013Defendant sufficiently articulated his claims such that counsel could have taken action had a meritorious ground been proffered or other intervention been called for (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d at 895-896 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re Martha P.
green
2 sentences2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S., 2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S., | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. McShaw
green
2 sentences2012While the trial judge acknowledged that it might be to trial counsel’s “ ‘advantage perhaps to confer’ ” with a supervisor, he nevertheless denied her request because it was the court’s “ ‘practice to exclude everybody.’ ” ( 204 AD2d at 742 .) The Second Department held that the closure of the courtroom to defense counsel’s supervisor was broader than constitutionally permissible, noting that the trial court failed to make findings adequate to justify the closure of the courtroom to the supervising attorneys on the record and failed to indicate that the presence of defense counsel’s supervisor 1995This Court reversed the conviction because the Supreme Court failed to make findings "that the presence of the defense counsel’s supervisors would endanger the undercover officers” (People v Mercer, supra, at 743 ). | 2 | 1995–2012 |
| People v. Antommarchi green | 2 | 1998–2003 |
| People v. Torres green | 2 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Torres green | 2 | 1991–1992 |
| United States v. Gagnon green | 2 | 1991–1992 |
| Rowe v. Washburne green | 2 | 1915–1962 |
| Kelley v. . People of the State of N.Y. green | 2 | 1920–1920 |
| Peck v. . Cary green | 2 | 1870–1880 |
| Rowe v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Daly v. Sprague green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. O'Kane green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Dame green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Dame green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Walton v. New York State Department of Correctional Services green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Mortensen v. Memorial Hospital green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Crotty green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Armstrong green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Cajigas green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Orvis Co. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Smikle green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| People v. Hines green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Rothgery v. Gillespie County green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Kidd green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| People v. Brown neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Rivers green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Diaz green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Ungar v. Sarafite green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Stevens green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Arroyave green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.