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.
13 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2025 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. Coupegreen2 sentences2018"Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation" ( People v Coupe , 124 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2015] [citations omitted]; [*2]accord People v Simpson , 155 AD3d at 1247 ). 2017“Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation” (People v Coupe, 124 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2015]; see People v Wiggins, 151 AD3d 1859, 1860 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 954 [2017]; People v Bevilacqua, 91 AD3d 1120, 1120 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. DeMoneygreen2 sentences2015Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation (see People v Filipowicz, 111 AD3d 1022 , 1022-1023 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1156 [2014]; People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d 953, 954 [2008]). 2009While it is true that hearsay evidence alone will not support the finding of a probation violation (see People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d at 954 ), the arrest report offered here was not hearsay evidence because it came within an exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Maldonado, 44 AD3d 793, 794 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1035 [2008]; Westchester Med. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Filipowiczgreen2 sentences2015As defendant correctly notes, hearsay evidence will not support the finding of a probation violation by itself (see People v Filipowicz, 111 AD3d at 1022-1023). 2015Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation (see People v Filipowicz, 111 AD3d 1022 , 1022-1023 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1156 [2014]; People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d 953, 954 [2008]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Parisgreen1 sentence2025"While hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, hearsay alone does not satisfy the requirement that a finding of a probation violation must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence" ( People v Owens , 258 AD2d 901, 901 [4th Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 975 [1999]; see People v Paris , 145 AD3d 1530 , 1531 [4th Dept 2016]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2019Finally, we discern neither extraordinary circumstances nor an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice ( see People v Jordan , 148 AD3d 1461, 1463 [2017]; People v Washington , 138 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2019Contrary to defendant's contention, Rosario violations do not constitute per se errors requiring reversal ( see CPL 240.75; People v Crandall , 38 AD3d 996, 997 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 842 [2007]; People v Nelson , 1 AD3d 796, 797 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]), and he has not claimed, let alone demonstrated, that the alleged violations materially contributed to the finding of a probation violation ( see People v Crandall , 38 AD3d at 997 ; People v Nelson , 1 AD3d at 797 ). 2019Contrary to defendant's contention, Rosario violations do not constitute per se errors requiring reversal ( see CPL 240.75; People v Crandall , 38 AD3d 996, 997 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 842 [2007]; People v Nelson , 1 AD3d 796, 797 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]), and he has not claimed, let alone demonstrated, that the alleged violations materially contributed to the finding of a probation violation ( see People v Crandall , 38 AD3d at 997 ; People v Nelson , 1 AD3d at 797 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crandallgreen2 sentences2019Contrary to defendant's contention, Rosario violations do not constitute per se errors requiring reversal ( see CPL 240.75; People v Crandall , 38 AD3d 996, 997 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 842 [2007]; People v Nelson , 1 AD3d 796, 797 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]), and he has not claimed, let alone demonstrated, that the alleged violations materially contributed to the finding of a probation violation ( see People v Crandall , 38 AD3d at 997 ; People v Nelson , 1 AD3d at 797 ). 2019Contrary to defendant's contention, Rosario violations do not constitute per se errors requiring reversal ( see CPL 240.75; People v Crandall , 38 AD3d 996, 997 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 842 [2007]; People v Nelson , 1 AD3d 796, 797 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]), and he has not claimed, let alone demonstrated, that the alleged violations materially contributed to the finding of a probation violation ( see People v Crandall , 38 AD3d at 997 ; People v Nelson , 1 AD3d at 797 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eggswaregreen1 sentence2019According deference to County Court's credibility determinations, we conclude that the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms of his probation ( see People v Eggsware , 125 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1162 [2015]; People v Cruz , 35 AD3d 898 , 899 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 845 [2007]). [FN1] Defendant argues that the People's failure to provide certain documents and a videotape at the hearing constituted Rosario violations warranting a reversal of the finding of a probation violation. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jordangreen1 sentence2019Finally, we discern neither extraordinary circumstances nor an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice ( see People v Jordan , 148 AD3d 1461, 1463 [2017]; People v Washington , 138 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bevilacquagreen1 sentence2017“Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation” (People v Coupe, 124 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2015]; see People v Wiggins, 151 AD3d 1859, 1860 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 954 [2017]; People v Bevilacqua, 91 AD3d 1120, 1120 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vancegreen1 sentence2017“Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation” (People v Coupe, 124 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2015]; see People v Wiggins, 151 AD3d 1859, 1860 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 954 [2017]; People v Bevilacqua, 91 AD3d 1120, 1120 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wigginsgreen1 sentence2017“Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation” (People v Coupe, 124 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2015]; see People v Wiggins, 151 AD3d 1859, 1860 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 954 [2017]; People v Bevilacqua, 91 AD3d 1120, 1120 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hollandgreen1 sentence2015Inasmuch as defendant’s probation officer testified that defendant had admitted to making several of the offending calls despite having been warned not to do so, however, nonhearsay evidence supports the finding of a violation (see People v Holland, 95 AD3d 1504, 1505 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 974 [2012]; People v Spady, 25 AD3d 881, 882 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bowergreen1 sentence2015While only hearsay was submitted to support the allegation that defendant failed to successfully complete an anger management class, rendering the proof insufficient on that allegation (see People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d at 954), the remaining allegations were supported by other evidence, including defendant’s admissions to his probation officer, which was sufficient to meet the legal standard (see People v Bower, 9 AD3d 603, 604 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 704 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Spadygreen1 sentence2015Inasmuch as defendant’s probation officer testified that defendant had admitted to making several of the offending calls despite having been warned not to do so, however, nonhearsay evidence supports the finding of a violation (see People v Holland, 95 AD3d 1504, 1505 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 974 [2012]; People v Spady, 25 AD3d 881, 882 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Maldonadogreen1 sentence2009While it is true that hearsay evidence alone will not support the finding of a probation violation (see People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d at 954 ), the arrest report offered here was not hearsay evidence because it came within an exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Maldonado, 44 AD3d 793, 794 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1035 [2008]; Westchester Med. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2006Inasmuch as defendant was released from jail in April 2006, his challenge to the finding of a probation violation has been rendered moot (see People v Contrano, 274 AD2d 760, 760-761 [2000]; People v Hamilton, 214 AD2d 783, 783 [1995]), as has his claim that his resentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Edmunds, 21 AD 3d 578, 581 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 828 [2005]; People v Young, 13 AD3d 716, 718 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Younggreen1 sentence2006Inasmuch as defendant was released from jail in April 2006, his challenge to the finding of a probation violation has been rendered moot (see People v Contrano, 274 AD2d 760, 760-761 [2000]; People v Hamilton, 214 AD2d 783, 783 [1995]), as has his claim that his resentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Edmunds, 21 AD 3d 578, 581 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 828 [2005]; People v Young, 13 AD3d 716, 718 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Edmundsgreen1 sentence2006Inasmuch as defendant was released from jail in April 2006, his challenge to the finding of a probation violation has been rendered moot (see People v Contrano, 274 AD2d 760, 760-761 [2000]; People v Hamilton, 214 AD2d 783, 783 [1995]), as has his claim that his resentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Edmunds, 21 AD 3d 578, 581 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 828 [2005]; People v Young, 13 AD3d 716, 718 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Contranogreen1 sentence2006Inasmuch as defendant was released from jail in April 2006, his challenge to the finding of a probation violation has been rendered moot (see People v Contrano, 274 AD2d 760, 760-761 [2000]; People v Hamilton, 214 AD2d 783, 783 [1995]), as has his claim that his resentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Edmunds, 21 AD 3d 578, 581 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 828 [2005]; People v Young, 13 AD3d 716, 718 [2004]). | 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. Machia
green
2 sentences1993It is well established that a finding of a probation violation must be based "upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ; CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Yutesler, 177 AD2d 732 ; People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610 ; People v Kovarik, 112 AD2d 170 ; People v Todd D., 100 AD2d 595 ). 1991While hearsay alone is insufficient to prove that a defendant has violated a condition of probation (People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610 , lv denied 75 NY2d 812 ; People v Krzykowski, supra), in this case there is "a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ) to establish a finding of a probation violation. | 4 | 1986–1993 |
People v. Bosley
neutral
2 sentences1993It is well established that a finding of a probation violation must be based "upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ; CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Yutesler, 177 AD2d 732 ; People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610 ; People v Kovarik, 112 AD2d 170 ; People v Todd D., 100 AD2d 595 ). 1989It is well established that a finding of a probation violation must be based " 'upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of legally competent evidence in the record’ (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ; People v Todd D., 100 AD2d 595 )” (People v Kovarik, 112 AD2d 170 ). | 2 | 1989–1993 |
People v. Kovarik
neutral
2 sentences1993It is well established that a finding of a probation violation must be based "upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ; CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Yutesler, 177 AD2d 732 ; People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610 ; People v Kovarik, 112 AD2d 170 ; People v Todd D., 100 AD2d 595 ). 1989It is well established that a finding of a probation violation must be based " 'upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of legally competent evidence in the record’ (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ; People v Todd D., 100 AD2d 595 )” (People v Kovarik, 112 AD2d 170 ). | 2 | 1989–1993 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences1993It is well established that a finding of a probation violation must be based "upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ; CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Yutesler, 177 AD2d 732 ; People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610 ; People v Kovarik, 112 AD2d 170 ; People v Todd D., 100 AD2d 595 ). 1991While hearsay alone is insufficient to prove that a defendant has violated a condition of probation (People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610 , lv denied 75 NY2d 812 ; People v Krzykowski, supra), in this case there is "a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ) to establish a finding of a probation violation. | 2 | 1991–1993 |
People v. Locke
neutral
1 sentence2019According deference to County Court's credibility determinations, we conclude that the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms of his probation ( see People v Eggsware , 125 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1162 [2015]; People v Cruz , 35 AD3d 898 , 899 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 845 [2007]). [FN1] Defendant argues that the People's failure to provide certain documents and a videotape at the hearing constituted Rosario violations warranting a reversal of the finding of a probation violation. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Simpson
green
1 sentence2018"Hearsay evidence is admissible and may be considered, but it cannot alone support a finding of a probation violation" ( People v Coupe , 124 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2015] [citations omitted]; [*2]accord People v Simpson , 155 AD3d at 1247 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Carlisle
green
1 sentence2015While only hearsay was submitted to support the allegation that defendant failed to successfully complete an anger management class, rendering the proof insufficient on that allegation (see People v DeMoney, 55 AD3d at 954), the remaining allegations were supported by other evidence, including defendant’s admissions to his probation officer, which was sufficient to meet the legal standard (see People v Bower, 9 AD3d 603, 604 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 704 [2004]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. GOLLIVER
green
1 sentence2006Inasmuch as defendant was released from jail in April 2006, his challenge to the finding of a probation violation has been rendered moot (see People v Contrano, 274 AD2d 760, 760-761 [2000]; People v Hamilton, 214 AD2d 783, 783 [1995]), as has his claim that his resentence was harsh and excessive (see People v Edmunds, 21 AD 3d 578, 581 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 828 [2005]; People v Young, 13 AD3d 716, 718 [2004]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People ex rel. Bentley v. Scully
green
1 sentence1993It is well established that a finding of a probation violation must be based "upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ; CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Yutesler, 177 AD2d 732 ; People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610 ; People v Kovarik, 112 AD2d 170 ; People v Todd D., 100 AD2d 595 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Krzykowski
green
1 sentence1991While hearsay alone is insufficient to prove that a defendant has violated a condition of probation (People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610 , lv denied 75 NY2d 812 ; People v Krzykowski, supra), in this case there is "a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114 ) to establish a finding of a probation violation. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Eubanks neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Termini v. Hackett green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.