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.
12 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2014 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. Lanegreen2 sentences2014Under those circumstances, defendant’s contention with respect to the prosecutor’s first comment is properly before us only insofar as his objection was overruled because “ ‘the curative instruction[ ] [would] be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Lane, 106 AD3d 1478, 1480-1481 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]). 2014Under those circumstances, defendant’s contention with respect to the prosecutor’s first comment is properly before us only insofar as his objection was overruled because “ ‘the curative instruction[ ] [would] be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Lane, 106 AD3d 1478, 1480-1481 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2012Defendant’s contention that a mistrial should have been granted when the victim’s testimony was bolstered is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not ask for a further curative instruction after County Court sustained his objection to the admissibility of the testimony, nor did he renew his motion for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see also People v Jones, 219 AD2d 736, 736 , lv denied 86 NY2d 873 ). 2012Defendant’s contention that a mistrial should have been granted when the victim’s testimony was bolstered is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not ask for a further curative instruction after County Court sustained his objection to the admissibility of the testimony, nor did he renew his motion for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see also People v Jones, 219 AD2d 736, 736 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 873 [1995]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Shaffergreen1 sentence2007Although the officer’s testimony with respect to the invocation by defendant of his right to counsel was improper (see People v Nicholas, 286 AD2d 861, 862 [2001], affd 98 NY2d 749 [2002]), the court immediately sustained defendant’s objection to that testimony, instructed the jury to disregard it, and offered to give a further curative instruction (see People v Shaffer, 223 AD2d 755, 755-756 [1996], lv denied 87 NY2d 1025 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nicholasgreen1 sentence2007Although the officer’s testimony with respect to the invocation by defendant of his right to counsel was improper (see People v Nicholas, 286 AD2d 861, 862 [2001], affd 98 NY2d 749 [2002]), the court immediately sustained defendant’s objection to that testimony, instructed the jury to disregard it, and offered to give a further curative instruction (see People v Shaffer, 223 AD2d 755, 755-756 [1996], lv denied 87 NY2d 1025 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Geddesgreen1 sentence1995The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly commented on the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not ask for a further curative instruction or renew his motion for a mistrial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see also, People v Geddes, 134 AD2d 279 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ashwalgreen1 sentence1987The court dissipated any prejudice by its prompt and clear curative instructions (see, People v Ashwal, supra, at 111). | 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. Medina
green
2 sentences2012Defendant’s arguments that various parts of the prosecutor’s summation were improper and prejudicial and as such violated defendant’s due process right to a fair trial are unpreserved (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Bran, 82 AD3d 1000 [2011]), as defendant did not timely object to every remark of which she now complains or made only general objections, and, as to the remaining objections, which were sustained, she failed to request a further curative instruction or move for a mistrial (see People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951 [1981]; People v Canteen, 30 Misc 3d 132[A 1990Since defense counsel neither requested a further curative instruction nor moved for a mistrial on the basis of that remark, no error has been preserved for our review (CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 ) and we decline to reach any error in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6]). | 2 | 1990–2012 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2012Moreover, the court explained in its instructions to the jury that summations were not evidence (see People v Williams, 28 AD3d 1059 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 854 [2007]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Word v. State
green
1 sentence2012Defendant’s arguments that various parts of the prosecutor’s summation were improper and prejudicial and as such violated defendant’s due process right to a fair trial are unpreserved (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Bran, 82 AD3d 1000 [2011]), as defendant did not timely object to every remark of which she now complains or made only general objections, and, as to the remaining objections, which were sustained, she failed to request a further curative instruction or move for a mistrial (see People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951 [1981]; People v Canteen, 30 Misc 3d 132[A | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Bran
green
1 sentence2012Defendant’s arguments that various parts of the prosecutor’s summation were improper and prejudicial and as such violated defendant’s due process right to a fair trial are unpreserved (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Bran, 82 AD3d 1000 [2011]), as defendant did not timely object to every remark of which she now complains or made only general objections, and, as to the remaining objections, which were sustained, she failed to request a further curative instruction or move for a mistrial (see People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951 [1981]; People v Canteen, 30 Misc 3d 132[A | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Van Dusen v. McMaster
green
1 sentence2012Moreover, the court explained in its instructions to the jury that summations were not evidence (see People v Williams, 28 AD3d 1059 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 854 [2007]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Nicholas
green
1 sentence2007Although the officer’s testimony with respect to the invocation by defendant of his right to counsel was improper (see People v Nicholas, 286 AD2d 861, 862 [2001], affd 98 NY2d 749 [2002]), the court immediately sustained defendant’s objection to that testimony, instructed the jury to disregard it, and offered to give a further curative instruction (see People v Shaffer, 223 AD2d 755, 755-756 [1996], lv denied 87 NY2d 1025 [1996]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
AAA Sprinkler Corp. v. General Star National Insurance
green
1 sentence2000The court denied the motion, but granted defendant’s alternative request for a further curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300 ; People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922, 923 , lv granted 95 NY2d 859 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Mosley
green
1 sentence2000Under the circumstances, the court’s refusal to grant a mistrial was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Mosley, 170 AD2d 990 , lv denied 77 NY2d 964 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Cruz
green
1 sentence2000The court denied the motion, but granted defendant’s alternative request for a further curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300 ; People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922, 923 , lv granted 95 NY2d 859 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Berg
green
1 sentence2000The court denied the motion, but granted defendant’s alternative request for a further curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300 ; People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922, 923 , lv granted 95 NY2d 859 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Balkum
neutral
1 sentence1998“Thus, the court ‘must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Balkum, 233 AD2d 929, 930 , lv denied 89 NY2d 939 , quoting People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence1998“Thus, the court ‘must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Balkum, 233 AD2d 929, 930 , lv denied 89 NY2d 939 , quoting People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Crimmins
green
1 sentence1995In any event, the court’s isolated statement was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Broady
green
1 sentence1987Additionally, the court gave a further curative instruction in its final charge to the jury regarding the comments which had been stricken during the summation (cf., People v Broady, 5 NY2d 500 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.