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.
17 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2018 0 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. Cruzgreen2 sentences2015The victim volunteered that information, and the court issued a curative instruction to the jurors, directing them not to consider that testimony (see People v Holton, 225 AD2d 1021, 1021 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 986 [1996]; see also People v Thigpen, 30 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 818 [2006]). 2015The victim volunteered that information, and the court issued a curative instruction to the jurors, directing them not to consider that testimony (see People v Holton, 225 AD2d 1021, 1021 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 986 [1996]; see also People v Thigpen, 30 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 818 [2006]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Holtongreen2 sentences2015The victim volunteered that information, and the court issued a curative instruction to the jurors, directing them not to consider that testimony (see People v Holton, 225 AD2d 1021, 1021 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 986 [1996]; see also People v Thigpen, 30 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 818 [2006]). 2015The victim volunteered that information, and the court issued a curative instruction to the jurors, directing them not to consider that testimony (see People v Holton, 225 AD2d 1021, 1021 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 986 [1996]; see also People v Thigpen, 30 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 818 [2006]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Medinagreen2 sentences2007The defendant either failed to object to the remarks or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Hines, 18 AD3d 882 [2005]). 2006The defendant either failed to object to the remarks during the trial or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Hines, 18 AD3d 882 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Heidegreen2 sentences2018That contention is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as the court issued a curative instruction in response to the first instance of testimony at issue and defendant did not object to the instruction or seek further relief ( see People v Townsend , 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]; see generally People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), and defendant did not object to the other instance of challenged testimony or request any instruction in response thereto ( see People v Stubbs , 96 AD3d 1448, 1449 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1001 [2012]; see gener 2007The defendant failed to object to some of the challenged remarks, or, when an objection was made and sustained, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d at 944 ; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v Bermudez, 36 AD3d 928 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]; People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 984 [2007]). | 1 | 2 |
City of Syracuse v. Central New York Ass'n of Delta Kappa Epsilongreen1 sentence2018That contention is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as the court issued a curative instruction in response to the first instance of testimony at issue and defendant did not object to the instruction or seek further relief ( see People v Townsend , 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]; see generally People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), and defendant did not object to the other instance of challenged testimony or request any instruction in response thereto ( see People v Stubbs , 96 AD3d 1448, 1449 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1001 [2012]; see gener | 1 | 1 |
People v. Townsendgreen1 sentence2018That contention is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as the court issued a curative instruction in response to the first instance of testimony at issue and defendant did not object to the instruction or seek further relief ( see People v Townsend , 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]; see generally People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), and defendant did not object to the other instance of challenged testimony or request any instruction in response thereto ( see People v Stubbs , 96 AD3d 1448, 1449 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1001 [2012]; see gener | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Christopher A. Nicholsongreen1 sentence2018That contention is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as the court issued a curative instruction in response to the first instance of testimony at issue and defendant did not object to the instruction or seek further relief ( see People v Townsend , 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]; see generally People v Heide , 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]), and defendant did not object to the other instance of challenged testimony or request any instruction in response thereto ( see People v Stubbs , 96 AD3d 1448, 1449 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1001 [2012]; see gener | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2010The court issued a curative instruction to the jury, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see generally People v Moore, 71 NY2d 684, 688 [1988]), and we cannot conclude that the single use of that term was so prejudicial that a fair and impartial verdict could not be reached (see generally People v Collins, 72 AD2d 431, 435-436 [1980]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Beneventogreen1 sentence2010We also reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, inasmuch as defendant failed to show the absence of a strategic explanation for defense counsel’s alleged shortcomings (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Baldigreen1 sentence2010We also reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, inasmuch as defendant failed to show the absence of a strategic explanation for defense counsel’s alleged shortcomings (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mooregreen1 sentence2010The court issued a curative instruction to the jury, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see generally People v Moore, 71 NY2d 684, 688 [1988]), and we cannot conclude that the single use of that term was so prejudicial that a fair and impartial verdict could not be reached (see generally People v Collins, 72 AD2d 431, 435-436 [1980]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hallgreen1 sentence2009We decline to exercise our power to address as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice the remainder of the allegedly improper comments to which defendant failed to object (see People v Hall, 53 AD3d 1080, 1083 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 855 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. DeCarlisgreen1 sentence2009The record establishes that the court issued a curative instruction, and we thus conclude that the court thereby “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v DeCarlis, 37 AD3d 1040 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riveragreen1 sentence2009Defendant failed to object to most of the allegedly improper comments and, when defense counsel made an objection, the court issued a curative instruction that the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Rivera, 281 AD2d 927, 928 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 906 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Pando-Franco v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007We conclude that the court’s corrective action “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony, and thus the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198-1199 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rosengreen1 sentence2007We conclude that the court’s corrective action “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony, and thus the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198-1199 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eugenegreen1 sentence2007In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair response to comments made during the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Eugene, 27 AD3d 480, 481 [2006]; People v Washington, 17 AD3d 384 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Santiagogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bleakleygreen | 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. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2015The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim to testify regarding prior bad acts that occurred during the assault on the victim inasmuch as that testimony “was inextricably interwoven with the evidence of the charged crime, it was necessary to comprehend that evidence . . . and its probative worth exceeded its prejudicial effect” (People v Robb, 23 AD3d 1116 , 1117 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 780 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2015The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim to testify regarding prior bad acts that occurred during the assault on the victim inasmuch as that testimony “was inextricably interwoven with the evidence of the charged crime, it was necessary to comprehend that evidence . . . and its probative worth exceeded its prejudicial effect” (People v Robb, 23 AD3d 1116 , 1117 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 780 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Robb
neutral
2 sentences2015The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim to testify regarding prior bad acts that occurred during the assault on the victim inasmuch as that testimony “was inextricably interwoven with the evidence of the charged crime, it was necessary to comprehend that evidence . . . and its probative worth exceeded its prejudicial effect” (People v Robb, 23 AD3d 1116 , 1117 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 780 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2015The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim to testify regarding prior bad acts that occurred during the assault on the victim inasmuch as that testimony “was inextricably interwoven with the evidence of the charged crime, it was necessary to comprehend that evidence . . . and its probative worth exceeded its prejudicial effect” (People v Robb, 23 AD3d 1116 , 1117 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 780 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Cassidy
green
2 sentences2009The record establishes that the court issued a curative instruction, and we thus conclude that the court thereby “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v DeCarlis, 37 AD3d 1040 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]). 2007We conclude that the court’s corrective action “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony, and thus the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198-1199 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). | 2 | 2007–2009 |
People v. DaCOSTA
green
2 sentences2009The record establishes that the court issued a curative instruction, and we thus conclude that the court thereby “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v DeCarlis, 37 AD3d 1040 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]). 2007We conclude that the court’s corrective action “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony, and thus the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198-1199 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). | 2 | 2007–2009 |
People v. Colon
neutral
2 sentences2009The record establishes that the court issued a curative instruction, and we thus conclude that the court thereby “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v DeCarlis, 37 AD3d 1040 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]). 2007We conclude that the court’s corrective action “alleviated any prejudice to defendant resulting from that testimony, and thus the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion” (People v Colon, 13 AD3d 1198 , 1198-1199 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 , 5 NY3d 760 [2005]; see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). | 2 | 2007–2009 |
People v. Sukdeo
neutral
2 sentences2007In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair response to comments made during the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Eugene, 27 AD3d 480, 481 [2006]; People v Washington, 17 AD3d 384 [2005]). 2006In any event, most of the challenged remarks constituted fair response to comments made during the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Washington, 17 AD3d 384 [2005]; People v Livigni, 288 AD2d 323 [2001]; People v Brunson, 284 AD2d 406 [2001]; People v Hill, 176 AD2d 755 [1991]). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
People v. Decclesis
green
2 sentences2007The defendant either failed to object to the remarks or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Hines, 18 AD3d 882 [2005]). 2006The defendant either failed to object to the remarks during the trial or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Hines, 18 AD3d 882 [2005]). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
People v. Berg
green
2 sentences2001Moreover, the court issued a curative instruction to the jurors, instructing them to disregard what had happened to the witness, and the jury is presumed to have followed the instruction (People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300 ). 1986"The importance, as well as the effect, of curative instructions * * * cannot be underestimated, as we depend, for the integrity of the jury system itself, upon the willingness of jurors to follow the court’s instruction in such matters” (People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300 ). | 2 | 1986–2001 |
People v. Hudson
green
1 sentence2009We decline to exercise our power to address as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice the remainder of the allegedly improper comments to which defendant failed to object (see People v Hall, 53 AD3d 1080, 1083 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 855 [2008]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2007In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair response to comments made during the defense counsel’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v Tatum, 39 AD3d 571 [2007]; People v Bermudez, 36 AD3d 928 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]; People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 984 [2007]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Durant
green
2 sentences2007The defendant failed to object to some of the challenged remarks, or, when an objection was made and sustained, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d at 944 ; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v Bermudez, 36 AD3d 928 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]; People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 984 [2007]). 2007In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair response to comments made during the defense counsel’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v Tatum, 39 AD3d 571 [2007]; People v Bermudez, 36 AD3d 928 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]; People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 984 [2007]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Bermudez
green
2 sentences2007The defendant failed to object to some of the challenged remarks, or, when an objection was made and sustained, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d at 944 ; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v Bermudez, 36 AD3d 928 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]; People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 984 [2007]). 2007In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair response to comments made during the defense counsel’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v Tatum, 39 AD3d 571 [2007]; People v Bermudez, 36 AD3d 928 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]; People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 984 [2007]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Tatum
green
1 sentence2007In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair response to comments made during the defense counsel’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v Tatum, 39 AD3d 571 [2007]; People v Bermudez, 36 AD3d 928 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]; People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 984 [2007]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Salnave green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Hill green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. Castellano green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. Livigni green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. O'Garro green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| People v. Davis neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Ellis green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Simms neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Moulton green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Yut Wai Tom green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Rivera neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.