CPL immunity in New York

2025Tax Relief, LLC , 16 Misc 3d 517 (NY Sup. Ct. 2007) (applying the objective reasonable-consumer standard of GBL § 349 to a CPL claim concerning statements that defendants alleged were inactionable puffery).

2025Tax Relief, LLC , 16 Misc 3d 517 (NY Sup. Ct. 2007) (applying the objective reasonable-consumer standard of GBL § 349 to a CPL claim concerning statements that defendants alleged were inactionable puffery).

2024No reasonable appellate counsel would reject the plain text of that provision for the People's "effective warning" rubric that finds no support even in the cases they cite (see People v Hemphill, 173 AD3d 471 , 479 [1st Dept 2019] [defendant removed for outburst during verdict, though "[e]arlier in the trial, the court had warned defendant that any further outbursts by him would result in his removal from the courtroom while his trial continued" (emphasis added)], affd 35 NY3d 1035 [2020], revd on other - 12 - - 13 - No. 42 grounds 595 US 140 [2022]; People v Irick, 203 AD3d 517, 517 [1st Dept

2018Simply stated, the CPL exception providing for nonjury trials of certain misdemeanors in New York City does not serve to deny a defendant subject to that exception the opportunity to establish that the charged crimes are considered serious enough by society, based on the penalties associated therewith, to entitle the defendant to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.{**32 NY3d at 499} III.

2018Simply stated, the CPL exception providing for nonjury trials of certain misdemeanors in New York City does not serve to deny a defendant subject to that exception the opportunity to establish that the charged crimes are considered serious enough by society, based on the penalties associated therewith, to entitle the defendant to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.{**32 NY3d at 499} III.

2002Although they raised it in their papers requesting reargument, the motion to reargue was denied and thus is not appealable (People v Auslander, 169 AD2d 853 ), and arguments raised for the first time therein are unpreserved (Shoulders v Brown, 224 AD2d 960 ).

2002Although they raised it in their papers requesting reargument, the motion to reargue was denied and thus is not appealable (People v Auslander, 169 AD2d 853 ), and arguments raised for the first time therein are unpreserved (Shoulders v Brown, 224 AD2d 960 ).

2000Noting that in People v Dumas ( 68 NY2d 729 [1986]) it had indicated that such a statement would be sufficient, the Court observed ( 79 NY2d, at 640 ): “Dumas differs from the present case in one key respect, however.

1996Inasmuch as defendant entered a voluntary, knowing and intelligent plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree and waived his right to appeal as part of that plea, he may not now challenge the severity of the sentence (see, People v Lopez, 212 AD2d 1053 , lv denied 85 NY2d 976 ; People v Minshell, 196 AD2d 911 , lv denied 82 NY2d 851 ).

1996Inasmuch as defendant entered a voluntary, knowing and intelligent plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree and waived his right to appeal as part of that plea, he may not now challenge the severity of the sentence (see, People v Lopez, 212 AD2d 1053 , lv denied 85 NY2d 976 ; People v Minshell, 196 AD2d 911 , lv denied 82 NY2d 851 ).

1991(CPL 100.40 [1] [c]; People v Burton, 133 Misc 2d 701 ; People v Paul, supra; People v McMillan, 125 Misc 2d 177 .) Even if a misdemeanor complaint has been sufficiently drawn, "[t]he experience and training of a police officer in the area of narcotics detection and identification, standing alone, does not satisfy the CPL requirement that the factual part of the information be supported by nonhearsay allegations. * * * In cases, as here, where the allegation is the possession or sale of cocaine or heroin * * * a laboratory report is an absolute necessity in order to convert the complaint to an

1991(CPL 100.40 [1] [c]; People v Burton, 133 Misc 2d 701 ; People v Paul, supra; People v McMillan, 125 Misc 2d 177 .) Even if a misdemeanor complaint has been sufficiently drawn, "[t]he experience and training of a police officer in the area of narcotics detection and identification, standing alone, does not satisfy the CPL requirement that the factual part of the information be supported by nonhearsay allegations. * * * In cases, as here, where the allegation is the possession or sale of cocaine or heroin * * * a laboratory report is an absolute necessity in order to convert the complaint to an

1990The CPL framework delineating the order of trial does not foreclose the trial court’s exercise of its common-law power to vary the order of proof " 'in its discretion and in furtherance of justice’ ” (People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353 , quoting People v Benham, 160 NY 402, 437 ), a power which "remains at least up to the time the case is submitted to the jury”.

1990The CPL framework delineating the order of trial does not foreclose the trial court’s exercise of its common-law power to vary the order of proof " 'in its discretion and in furtherance of justice’ ” (People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353 , quoting People v Benham, 160 NY 402, 437 ), a power which "remains at least up to the time the case is submitted to the jury”.

1990(Supra, at 353.) Although defendant cites Brooks v Tennessee ( 406 US 605 ) in support of reversal and a new trial, nothing of the magnitude of the problem arising in that case is presented here.

1990(Supra, at 353.) Although defendant cites Brooks v Tennessee ( 406 US 605 ) in support of reversal and a new trial, nothing of the magnitude of the problem arising in that case is presented here.

1990The CPL framework delineating the order of trial does not foreclose the trial court’s exercise of its common-law power to vary the order of proof " 'in its discretion and in furtherance of justice’ ” (People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353 , quoting People v Benham, 160 NY 402, 437 ), a power which "remains at least up to the time the case is submitted to the jury”.

1990The CPL framework delineating the order of trial does not foreclose the trial court’s exercise of its common-law power to vary the order of proof " 'in its discretion and in furtherance of justice’ ” (People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353 , quoting People v Benham, 160 NY 402, 437 ), a power which "remains at least up to the time the case is submitted to the jury”.

1987(Cf., People v Prim, 40 NY2d 946 [1976], modfg on other grounds 47 AD2d 409 [1975].) Moreover, the CPL requirement that challenges to the jury be made "before the selection of the jury commences” is not met when the motion is made after even a single panel of prospective jurors has been sworn and informed of the nature of the indictment.

1987(Cf., People v Prim, 40 NY2d 946 [1976], modfg on other grounds 47 AD2d 409 [1975].) Moreover, the CPL requirement that challenges to the jury be made "before the selection of the jury commences” is not met when the motion is made after even a single panel of prospective jurors has been sworn and informed of the nature of the indictment.

1983(McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 ; Matter of Daniel D., 27 NY2d 90 ; Matter of Tony W., 91 Misc 2d 700 .) It is within the context of Matter of Gault and its progeny that three New York cases have held the CPL immunity provisions applicable to juvenile or persons in need of supervision (PINS) (article 7) proceedings.

1983(McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 ; Matter of Daniel D., 27 NY2d 90 ; Matter of Tony W., 91 Misc 2d 700 .) It is within the context of Matter of Gault and its progeny that three New York cases have held the CPL immunity provisions applicable to juvenile or persons in need of supervision (PINS) (article 7) proceedings.

1983Two of these cases, Matter of De Gaglia ( 54 Misc 2d 423 ) and Matter of Jaime T. ( 96 Misc 2d 173 ), involved juveniles who, prior to the Family Court proceeding, had testified previously before a Grand Jury and were therefore automatically granted immunity pursuant to CPL 190.40.

1983Two of these cases, Matter of De Gaglia ( 54 Misc 2d 423 ) and Matter of Jaime T. ( 96 Misc 2d 173 ), involved juveniles who, prior to the Family Court proceeding, had testified previously before a Grand Jury and were therefore automatically granted immunity pursuant to CPL 190.40.

1983Two of these cases, Matter of De Gaglia ( 54 Misc 2d 423 ) and Matter of Jaime T. ( 96 Misc 2d 173 ), involved juveniles who, prior to the Family Court proceeding, had testified previously before a Grand Jury and were therefore automatically granted immunity pursuant to CPL 190.40.

1983Two of these cases, Matter of De Gaglia ( 54 Misc 2d 423 ) and Matter of Jaime T. ( 96 Misc 2d 173 ), involved juveniles who, prior to the Family Court proceeding, had testified previously before a Grand Jury and were therefore automatically granted immunity pursuant to CPL 190.40.

1983The third case holding the CPL immunity provisions applicable, Barry M. ( 93 Misc 2d 882 , supra), is far more similar to the instant proceeding in that the immunity request to the court by the petitioner concerned the petitioner’s witness who had not been involved in a prior Grand Jury proceeding.

1983The third case holding the CPL immunity provisions applicable, Barry M. ( 93 Misc 2d 882 , supra), is far more similar to the instant proceeding in that the immunity request to the court by the petitioner concerned the petitioner’s witness who had not been involved in a prior Grand Jury proceeding.

1983(McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 ; Matter of Daniel D., 27 NY2d 90 ; Matter of Tony W., 91 Misc 2d 700 .) It is within the context of Matter of Gault and its progeny that three New York cases have held the CPL immunity provisions applicable to juvenile or persons in need of supervision (PINS) (article 7) proceedings.

1983(McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 ; Matter of Daniel D., 27 NY2d 90 ; Matter of Tony W., 91 Misc 2d 700 .) It is within the context of Matter of Gault and its progeny that three New York cases have held the CPL immunity provisions applicable to juvenile or persons in need of supervision (PINS) (article 7) proceedings.

1983(McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 ; Matter of Daniel D., 27 NY2d 90 ; Matter of Tony W., 91 Misc 2d 700 .) It is within the context of Matter of Gault and its progeny that three New York cases have held the CPL immunity provisions applicable to juvenile or persons in need of supervision (PINS) (article 7) proceedings.

1983(McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 ; Matter of Daniel D., 27 NY2d 90 ; Matter of Tony W., 91 Misc 2d 700 .) It is within the context of Matter of Gault and its progeny that three New York cases have held the CPL immunity provisions applicable to juvenile or persons in need of supervision (PINS) (article 7) proceedings.

1975The court must first decide whether the viewing in front of the station house constituted an identification within the purview of United States v Wade ( 388 US 218 ) and, whether the CPL requires that a hearing be held irrespective of the court’s initial determination.

1975There is a broad range of authority governing the first aspect of the problem culminating with the recent decision by the Court of Appeals in People v Morales ( 37 NY2d 262 ).