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.
14 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2025 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. Spickermangreen2 sentences2014Furthermore, “nothing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; see People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639, 639 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 859 [1998]). 2014Furthermore, “nothing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; see People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639, 639 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 859 [1998]). | 4 | 6 |
People v. Reyesgreen2 sentences2014Furthermore, “nothing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; see People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639, 639 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 859 [1998]). 2014Furthermore, “nothing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; see People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639, 639 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 859 [1998]). | 4 | 5 |
People v. McClaingreen2 sentences2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court had no duty to engage in an additional inquiry regarding a possible justification defense. “ ‘[N]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense’ ” (People v Manor, 121 AD3d 1581 , 1582 [2014], affd 27 NY3d 1012 [2016]; see People v Wilson, 107 AD3d 532 , 532 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1160 [2014], denied reconsideration 23 NY3d 1069 [2014]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]), and the court “had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of [justific 2014Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences2014Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]). 2014Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2014Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]). 2014Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court had no duty to engage in an additional inquiry regarding a possible justification defense. “ ‘[N]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense’ ” (People v Manor, 121 AD3d 1581 , 1582 [2014], affd 27 NY3d 1012 [2016]; see People v Wilson, 107 AD3d 532 , 532 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1160 [2014], denied reconsideration 23 NY3d 1069 [2014]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]), and the court “had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of [justific | 1 | 1 |
People v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court had no duty to engage in an additional inquiry regarding a possible justification defense. “ ‘[N]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense’ ” (People v Manor, 121 AD3d 1581 , 1582 [2014], affd 27 NY3d 1012 [2016]; see People v Wilson, 107 AD3d 532 , 532 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1160 [2014], denied reconsideration 23 NY3d 1069 [2014]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]), and the court “had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of [justific | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2010Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, vacate the plea of guilty, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment (cf. People v Ferraro, 49 AD3d at 551 ; People v Rodriguez, 14 AD3d 719, 720 [2005]; People v Pangburn, 298 AD2d 989 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bartlettgreen1 sentence2002Moreover, at no time during the plea allocution did the defendant raise a viable justification defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty and, therefore, the Supreme Court was not required to question the defendant as to a potential justification defense (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 ; People v Lopez, supra at 667 ; People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639 ; People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327 ; People v Brewley, 211 AD2d 805, 806 ; People v Carter, 187 AD2d 666 ; see also People v Bartlett, 215 AD2d 489, 490 ). | 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. Lopez
green
2 sentences2016Although the defendant’s allocution may have raised the possibility that a viable justification defense existed, the County Court made the requisite further inquiry with respect to that potential defense, to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and the defendant neither challenged the adequacy of that inquiry nor moved to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 667-668 ; Peopled Sierra, 256 AD2d 598 , 599-600 [1998]). 2002Moreover, at no time during the plea allocution did the defendant raise a viable justification defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty and, therefore, the Supreme Court was not required to question the defendant as to a potential justification defense (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 ; People v Lopez, supra at 667 ; People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639 ; People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327 ; People v Brewley, 211 AD2d 805, 806 ; People v Carter, 187 AD2d 666 ; see also People v Bartlett, 215 AD2d 489, 490 ). | 3 | 1999–2016 |
People v. Ruffin
green
2 sentences2014Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]). 2014Moreover, “nothing [defendant] said raised the possibility of a viable justification defense” (People v Spickerman, 307 AD2d 774, 775 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 624 [2003]; cf. People v Ponder, 34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]). “ ‘[T]he challenge by defendant [in his pro se supplemental brief] to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is forfeited by his guilty plea’ ” (People v Ruffin, 101 AD3d 1793 , 1793 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Anderson, 90 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 991 [2012]). | 3 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Manor
green
2 sentences2025Here, because "[n]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense" ( People v Manor , 121 AD3d 1581 , 1582 [4th Dept 2014], affd 27 NY3d 1012 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]), no further inquiry was necessary. 2025Here, because "[n]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense" ( People v Manor , 121 AD3d 1581 , 1582 [4th Dept 2014], affd 27 NY3d 1012 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]), no further inquiry was necessary. | 2 | 2017–2025 |
The People v. Tyrone D. Manor
green
2 sentences2025Here, because "[n]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense" ( People v Manor , 121 AD3d 1581 , 1582 [4th Dept 2014], affd 27 NY3d 1012 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]), no further inquiry was necessary. 2025Here, because "[n]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense" ( People v Manor , 121 AD3d 1581 , 1582 [4th Dept 2014], affd 27 NY3d 1012 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]), no further inquiry was necessary. | 2 | 2017–2025 |
People v. Toxey
green
2 sentences2002Moreover, at no time during the plea allocution did the defendant raise a viable justification defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty and, therefore, the Supreme Court was not required to question the defendant as to a potential justification defense (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 ; People v Lopez, supra at 667 ; People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639 ; People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327 ; People v Brewley, 211 AD2d 805, 806 ; People v Carter, 187 AD2d 666 ; see also People v Bartlett, 215 AD2d 489, 490 ). 1999However, the defendant’s recitations, read as a whole and in context of the case (see, People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 ), do not raise a viable justification defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty, i.e., murder in the second degree based on a depraved indifference to human life (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 ; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 667 ). | 2 | 1999–2002 |
People v. Bell
green
1 sentence2016In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the further inquiry made by the County Court was sufficient to ensure the validity of the defendant’s plea of guilty, and we agree with the County Court’s determination that the defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Alonzo, 90 AD3d 1065 [2011]; People v Mead, 27 AD3d 767 [2006]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Mead
green
1 sentence2016In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the further inquiry made by the County Court was sufficient to ensure the validity of the defendant’s plea of guilty, and we agree with the County Court’s determination that the defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Alonzo, 90 AD3d 1065 [2011]; People v Mead, 27 AD3d 767 [2006]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Sierra
green
1 sentence2016Although the defendant’s allocution may have raised the possibility that a viable justification defense existed, the County Court made the requisite further inquiry with respect to that potential defense, to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and the defendant neither challenged the adequacy of that inquiry nor moved to withdraw his plea of guilty (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 667-668 ; Peopled Sierra, 256 AD2d 598 , 599-600 [1998]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. De Los Santos
green
1 sentence2010Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, vacate the plea of guilty, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment (cf. People v Ferraro, 49 AD3d at 551 ; People v Rodriguez, 14 AD3d 719, 720 [2005]; People v Pangburn, 298 AD2d 989 [2002]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Pangburn
neutral
1 sentence2010Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, vacate the plea of guilty, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment (cf. People v Ferraro, 49 AD3d at 551 ; People v Rodriguez, 14 AD3d 719, 720 [2005]; People v Pangburn, 298 AD2d 989 [2002]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Carter
neutral
1 sentence2002Moreover, at no time during the plea allocution did the defendant raise a viable justification defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty and, therefore, the Supreme Court was not required to question the defendant as to a potential justification defense (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 ; People v Lopez, supra at 667 ; People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639 ; People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327 ; People v Brewley, 211 AD2d 805, 806 ; People v Carter, 187 AD2d 666 ; see also People v Bartlett, 215 AD2d 489, 490 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Brewley
neutral
1 sentence2002Moreover, at no time during the plea allocution did the defendant raise a viable justification defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty and, therefore, the Supreme Court was not required to question the defendant as to a potential justification defense (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 ; People v Lopez, supra at 667 ; People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639 ; People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327 ; People v Brewley, 211 AD2d 805, 806 ; People v Carter, 187 AD2d 666 ; see also People v Bartlett, 215 AD2d 489, 490 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Negron
green
1 sentence2002Moreover, at no time during the plea allocution did the defendant raise a viable justification defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty and, therefore, the Supreme Court was not required to question the defendant as to a potential justification defense (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 ; People v Lopez, supra at 667 ; People v Reyes, 247 AD2d 639 ; People v Negron, 222 AD2d 327 ; People v Brewley, 211 AD2d 805, 806 ; People v Carter, 187 AD2d 666 ; see also People v Bartlett, 215 AD2d 489, 490 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence2002The plea allocution minutes demonstrate that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that he understood the crime to which he was pleading guilty (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 ; People v Chiovaro, 261 AD2d 632, 633 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Chiovaro
neutral
1 sentence2002The plea allocution minutes demonstrate that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that he understood the crime to which he was pleading guilty (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 ; People v Chiovaro, 261 AD2d 632, 633 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Mcgowen
green
1 sentence1999However, the defendant’s recitations, read as a whole and in context of the case (see, People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 ), do not raise a viable justification defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty, i.e., murder in the second degree based on a depraved indifference to human life (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 ; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 667 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In re John R.
neutral
1 sentence1985We further note that the Family Court Judge should have conducted a more thorough allocution of appellant when it became apparent that he might be forgoing a viable justification defense (People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304 ; Matter of John R., 71 AD2d 896 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Serrano
green
1 sentence1985We further note that the Family Court Judge should have conducted a more thorough allocution of appellant when it became apparent that he might be forgoing a viable justification defense (People v Serrano, 15 NY2d 304 ; Matter of John R., 71 AD2d 896 ). | 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.