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 1990–2021 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. Abrewgreen2 sentences2012Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923 ; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). 2012Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923 ; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2012Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923 ; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). 2012Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923 ; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). | 2 | 4 |
People v. Cortezgreen2 sentences2012Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923 ; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). 2012Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923 ; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lovettgreen2 sentences2012Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923 ; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). 2012Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923 ; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Olivaresgreen2 sentences2012In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]; People v Miller, 268 AD2d 600, 600-601 [2000]). 2012In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]; People v Miller, 268 AD2d 600, 600-601 [2000]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Millergreen2 sentences2012In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]; People v Miller, 268 AD2d 600, 600-601 [2000]). 2012In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]; People v Miller, 268 AD2d 600, 600-601 [2000]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Modestogreen2 sentences2011However, the “defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression issue where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing” (People v Maxis, 50 AD3d 922, 923 [2008]; see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Crewe, 73 AD3d 943 [2010]; People v Hudson, 71 AD3d 1046 [2010]; People v Fleming, 65 AD3d 702 [2009]; People v Nunez, 55 AD3d 756 [2008]; People v Rice, 39 AD3d 567 [2007]). 2008Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression issue where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Rice, 39 AD3d 567, 568 [2007]; People v Facey, 22 AD3d 765, 766 [2005]). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Nunezgreen2 sentences2011However, the “defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression issue where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing” (People v Maxis, 50 AD3d 922, 923 [2008]; see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Crewe, 73 AD3d 943 [2010]; People v Hudson, 71 AD3d 1046 [2010]; People v Fleming, 65 AD3d 702 [2009]; People v Nunez, 55 AD3d 756 [2008]; People v Rice, 39 AD3d 567 [2007]). 2010However, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Nunez, 55 AD3d 756, 757 [2008]; People v Boynton, 35 AD3d 875, 876 [2006]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence2021We conclude that the court was entitled to determine, on this record, that the description on the audio recording could reasonably be interpreted as being consistent with the officers' testimony, and thus "[t]here is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determination[ with respect to] its resolution of any [purported] inconsistencies between [the officers'] testimony and [the] recording" ( People v Brown , 14 AD3d 356, 356 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 852 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2020The content of the detective's report does not contain the requisite "additional pertinent facts" to support a reopening of the suppression hearing (CPL 710.40[4]; see People v Clark , 88 NY2d 552, 554-555 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stultzgreen1 sentence2016Certainly, “[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel’s failure to ‘make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success’ ” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005], quoting People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Graygreen1 sentence2016Far from a “longshot” (majority op at 82), defendant would have been entitled to a reopening of the suppression hearing had such a request been made. * In evaluating the prejudice that flowed from defense counsel’s failure to move for reopening, the Appellate Division erred by rejecting defendant’s ineffective assistance claim based on its conclusion that defendant did not have a “winning” suppression argument (116 AD3d at 481). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cabangreen1 sentence2016Certainly, “[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel’s failure to ‘make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success’ ” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005], quoting People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bessergreen1 sentence2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People adduced sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of one of the defendant’s accomplices, which tended to connect the defendant to the robbery (see CPL 60.22; People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 191-192 [2010]; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143-144 [2001]; People v Montefusco, 44 AD3d 879, 880 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Montefuscogreen1 sentence2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People adduced sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of one of the defendant’s accomplices, which tended to connect the defendant to the robbery (see CPL 60.22; People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 191-192 [2010]; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143-144 [2001]; People v Montefusco, 44 AD3d 879, 880 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reomegreen1 sentence2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People adduced sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of one of the defendant’s accomplices, which tended to connect the defendant to the robbery (see CPL 60.22; People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 191-192 [2010]; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143-144 [2001]; People v Montefusco, 44 AD3d 879, 880 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Binetgreen1 sentence2010However, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing (see People v Nunez, 55 AD3d 756, 757 [2008]; People v Boynton, 35 AD3d 875, 876 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chippgreen1 sentence2008The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the information furnished by a named private citizen (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 339-340 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Nealy, 32 AD3d 400, 401 [2006]; People v Nieves, 26 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]; People v Pagan, 184 AD2d 738 [1992]; People v Grams, 166 AD2d 717 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Turnergreen1 sentence2008Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beneventogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Donaldsongreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nievesgreen1 sentence2008The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the information furnished by a named private citizen (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 339-340 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Nealy, 32 AD3d 400, 401 [2006]; People v Nieves, 26 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]; People v Pagan, 184 AD2d 738 [1992]; People v Grams, 166 AD2d 717 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Haynesgreen1 sentence2008The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the information furnished by a named private citizen (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 339-340 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Nealy, 32 AD3d 400, 401 [2006]; People v Nieves, 26 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]; People v Pagan, 184 AD2d 738 [1992]; People v Grams, 166 AD2d 717 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Leegreen | 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. Fuentes
green
2 sentences1996Since the defendant did not present any additional, pertinent evidence warranting the reopening of the suppression hearing (see, CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894 ; People v Graham, 120 AD2d 674 ; see also, People v Lee, 216 AD2d 326 ), the motion was properly denied. 1996Defendant’s claim that inconsistencies between the trial testimony of prosecution and defense witnesses warranted a reopening of the suppression hearing is without merit absent some "special or compelling” reason for his not having called his trial witnesses at the suppression hearing (People v Fuentes, 74 AD2d 753, 754 , affd 53 NY2d 892 ; see, CPL 710.40 [4]). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Chapman
green
1 sentence2021We conclude that the court was entitled to determine, on this record, that the description on the audio recording could reasonably be interpreted as being consistent with the officers' testimony, and thus "[t]here is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determination[ with respect to] its resolution of any [purported] inconsistencies between [the officers'] testimony and [the] recording" ( People v Brown , 14 AD3d 356, 356 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 852 [2005]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. McCoy
neutral
1 sentence2020Since the defendant was under arrest at the police station and at the hospital, the police were cloaked with the authority to search and inventory his immediate personal effects ( see People v McCoy , 271 AD2d 620 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Fleming
green
1 sentence2011However, the “defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression issue where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing” (People v Maxis, 50 AD3d 922, 923 [2008]; see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Crewe, 73 AD3d 943 [2010]; People v Hudson, 71 AD3d 1046 [2010]; People v Fleming, 65 AD3d 702 [2009]; People v Nunez, 55 AD3d 756 [2008]; People v Rice, 39 AD3d 567 [2007]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2011However, the “defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression issue where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing” (People v Maxis, 50 AD3d 922, 923 [2008]; see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Crewe, 73 AD3d 943 [2010]; People v Hudson, 71 AD3d 1046 [2010]; People v Fleming, 65 AD3d 702 [2009]; People v Nunez, 55 AD3d 756 [2008]; People v Rice, 39 AD3d 567 [2007]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Crewe
neutral
1 sentence2011However, the “defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression issue where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppression hearing” (People v Maxis, 50 AD3d 922, 923 [2008]; see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Crewe, 73 AD3d 943 [2010]; People v Hudson, 71 AD3d 1046 [2010]; People v Fleming, 65 AD3d 702 [2009]; People v Nunez, 55 AD3d 756 [2008]; People v Rice, 39 AD3d 567 [2007]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Jenkins
green
1 sentence2010The defendant’s general motion for a trial order of dismissal was not sufficient to preserve for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions under a theory of accomplice liability (see People v Jenkins, 55 AD3d 850 [2008]; People v Chicchetti, 29 AD3d 918 [2006]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Clark
green
1 sentence2010The defendant’s general motion for a trial order of dismissal was not sufficient to preserve for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions under a theory of accomplice liability (see People v Jenkins, 55 AD3d 850 [2008]; People v Chicchetti, 29 AD3d 918 [2006]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Grams green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Pagan
green
1 sentence2008The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the information furnished by a named private citizen (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 339-340 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Nealy, 32 AD3d 400, 401 [2006]; People v Nieves, 26 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]; People v Pagan, 184 AD2d 738 [1992]; People v Grams, 166 AD2d 717 [1990]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Crosby green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Riley v. Sullivan green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Autry green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| City of New York v. BusTop Shelters, Inc. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Graham neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Mitchell-Benetiz green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Marder v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| In re the Estate of Winston green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Adams neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Kern green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Monahan green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Kern green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Strand v. Defense Logistic Agency green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.